China Lands Spacecraft on Far Side of Moon

Jan 31, 2018
1,411
353
250
You don't know anything about my aunt other than what i have told you, so you have zero reason to assume things here.
You brought her into the conversation and then asked me to comment about her work. 🤔

She works with the poorest of the poor and lives among them, helping them out whenever and wherever.
Everyone should be helping the poor. You wanna know who’s truly poor? Those who are spiritually bankrupt. Christ wasn’t concerned about monetarily poor people getting into heaven now was he? He preached giving your possessions away.

So what are you then?
One who believes that Christ is the Son of God and that it is possible to eventually leave sin and follow him completely. You ever wonder why missionaries and pastors can’t heal people? Christ said we’d be able to do things greater than He. The world is a mess and all churches seem to care about is tithes and the help they send people isn’t the same help Christ gave. He wasn’t going around repairing villages and bringing them rice and clean water. The water that he would have brought would be living water for the spiritually thirsty.

You do know that as a gravitating body of weight, the moon can block the sun and thus be in shadow, no?
If I stood in front of you at the right angle, my shadow would block you too.
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,467
1,961
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
You brought her into the conversation and then asked me to comment about her work. 🤔
And your answer to that was ''Ask your aunt where Israel is and I bet she’d tell you it’s that place in the desert.'' which is an assumption.

Everyone should be helping the poor.
She's actually doing it in barren circumstances, but according to you most missionairies are just preaching love and rainbows.

You wanna know who’s truly poor? Those who are spiritually bankrupt. Christ wasn’t concerned about monetarily poor people getting into heaven now was he? He preached giving your possessions away.
Guess what? That's what my aunt is doing! She is living the way of Christ in all its facets.

One who believes that Christ is the Son of God and that it is possible to eventually leave sin and follow him completely. You ever wonder why missionaries and pastors can’t heal people? Christ said we’d be able to do things greater than He. The world is a mess and all churches seem to care about is tithes and the help they send people isn’t the same help Christ gave. He wasn’t going around repairing villages and bringing them rice and clean water. The water that he would have brought would be living water for the spiritually thirsty.
Well you are definitely following him, that's for sure.

If I stood in front of you at the right angle, my shadow would block you too.
And what light source do you think is the cause of that? Because we need a light source before your shadow will block my perception of light.

But good on you for not proving my point wrong.

Anyways, back to the moon stuff! China is doing its uptick, are they also considering making ion thrusters?
 
Nov 5, 2016
3,597
2,277
270
I don't care where (just far)
The United States was founded by Jesus Christ, so what you are saying makes sense. Like you, I don't believe foreigners. Next time I see a "foreigner" in public, I will give them a piece of my mind!
Indeed. Those who refuse to follow Christ deserve every punishment. Either way, this is why I’m voting for Trump again. We need a wall to keep all undesirables out.
the only people who believe in this are libtards. only the US can make it to the moon and that is because the moon and space is not real. this is libtard propoganda

JESUS has risen. SCIENCE is SATAN. Scripture says so. If you do not read it than FUCK YOU


I feel like David After Dentist
 
Last edited:
Jan 31, 2018
1,411
353
250
Wait a got damned minute. How the hell is there LIGHT and SHADOWS on the DARK side of the moon anyway? Depending on the moon phase according to science, wouldn’t that determine where the suns light is being cast onto the moon? I mean it’s completely possible to have a full moon with the sun and moon in the sky at the same time. 🤔
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
34,924
426
1,135
Best Coast
Wait a got damned minute. How the hell is there LIGHT and SHADOWS on the DARK side of the moon anyway? Depending on the moon phase according to science, wouldn’t that determine where the suns light is being cast onto the moon?
The "dark side" of the moon is an inaccurate name. It casually refers to the side of the moon that always faces away from the Earth, which is why the technical term that NASA uses is actually "far side", since it is not always dark. The "dark side" name became popular in common vernacular because of a popular Pink Floyd song, and because it sounds cool.

I hope that clears things up for you..
 
Dec 3, 2013
16,626
9,226
555
Anyone have an explanation on the gibbous moon, since they say Earth causes the crescent shadow. What causes the reversed shadow making the earth look like a bowl rather than a ball in comparison?
 
Last edited:
Jan 31, 2018
1,411
353
250
Anyone habe an explanation on the gibbous moon, since they say Earth causes the crescent shadow. What causes the reversed shadow making the earth look like a bowl rather than a ball in comparison?
I’m still waiting on transitions between phases. Earth doesn’t make the shadow. The position of the suns light supposedly does which I don’t buy since you can see them both in the sky at the same time at times.
 
Feb 22, 2018
1,088
1,034
310
The second landing is during pitch darkness, night on moon. Those are yellowish lights from the lander. First landing was during day time on moon.
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,467
1,961
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
Is...is it safe to come out now?



Now that we have the trolling out of the way....would you visit a moon colony and for how much per ticket?
Get the dog back in, we ain't over yet!

I would love to visit a moon colony, but i reckon that to set everything up, we would be looking at costs far exceeding the cost and maintenance of the ISS, which was (i believe) 15 billion or something. Stuff's expensive.

On a smaller scale though, i can see that transfer ships will go to the Moon and Mars and less relying on rocket engines, but ion thrusters. The Dawn Spacecraft was an exceptional example of using this kind of propulsion, although it is slow as molasses. For long distance autonymous travels by robots, Ion Propulsion is definitely a way to go.

I was actually surprised that this existed as far back as the 60's even, i thought it was just a concept and coming from comic book, but here we are.
I will admit, that looks suspect. The ground "textures" are completely different. Same with horizon range.

China doing a knock off moon mission? ;)
  • There are obviously multiple camera's onboard, each with a different aperture and focal range.
  • To make these mosaics, images have to be combined.
  • Most photo's sent back to Earth from all probes in space are processed before release. This is ofcourse a good argument for @AngularSaxophone since it would prove that all space agencies might be faking everything we see. Although this would suggest a decades long multinational conspiracy that has spanned generations of people, which is far less likely than believing common sense. Heck, even the Watergate scandal was more akin to a conspiracy and even that proved to be true, so there you go.
So we’re just going to ignore the crater looking completely different in the pictures? I can’t. 😂
See above. Also, would you want to prove all the other things or are you going to make an attempt first?

See edit though. If the moon gets its light and phases from the sun (which I dont believe),
Well then we don't have to prove anything to you, right? You wouldn't believe it either way.
 
Last edited:
Likes: bad guy
Dec 20, 2018
13
6
75
Why didn't they announce the timing of this mission so anyone with a telescope or a zoom camera could look in realtime as they sent their shit to the moon? I'd love to see that, but no, they'd rather do it in secrecy for some reason.
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,467
1,961
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
Why didn't they announce the timing of this mission so anyone with a telescope or a zoom camera could look in realtime as they sent their shit to the moon? I'd love to see that, but no, they'd rather do it in secrecy for some reason.
Primarily because the previous two attempts didn't go too well and they were very public about those, so in order to save some face, they kept it more private and only report when the mission was a success.

Makes sense really.
 
Dec 20, 2018
13
6
75
Primarily because the previous two attempts didn't go too well and they were very public about those, so in order to save some face, they kept it more private and only report when the mission was a success.

Makes sense really.
Oh so they did announce the previous attempts? Alright lemme check youtube real quick...

Okay just checked. Not a single video of a rocket actually going towards or around the moon in realtime filmed from Earth with a telescope or zoom camera. If I were to sent a rocket to the moon, I'd sure as hell inform everybody with a telescope or zoom camera to point their lenses to the moon as my rocket went up there. But no...not a single space agency bothers to do that. Why? Because they're full of shit, that's why.
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,467
1,961
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
Oh so they did announce the previous attempts? Alright lemme check youtube real quick...
I believe they did, but likely through Chinese State media.

Okay just checked. Not a single video of a rocket actually going towards or around the moon in realtime filmed from Earth with a telescope or zoom camera. If I were to sent a rocket to the moon, I'd sure as hell inform everybody with a telescope or zoom camera to point their lenses to the moon as my rocket went up there. But no...not a single space agency bothers to do that. Why? Because they're full of shit, that's why.
Yeah i mean, the bolded is rather meaningless. If space agencies were full of shit there wouldn't be any space agencies, come on now.
 
Aug 3, 2010
20,473
2,400
675
In a cave outside of Whooville.
Oh so they did announce the previous attempts? Alright lemme check youtube real quick...

Okay just checked. Not a single video of a rocket actually going towards or around the moon in realtime filmed from Earth with a telescope or zoom camera. If I were to sent a rocket to the moon, I'd sure as hell inform everybody with a telescope or zoom camera to point their lenses to the moon as my rocket went up there. But no...not a single space agency bothers to do that. Why? Because they're full of shit, that's why.
It's because looking through a telescope warps space a slight amount so if millions of people did it while watching the rocket, the space would be warped to such an extreme degree that the rocket wouldn't have enough fuel to get there.
 
Dec 20, 2018
13
6
75
It's because looking through a telescope warps space a slight amount so if millions of people did it while watching the rocket, the space would be warped to such an extreme degree that the rocket wouldn't have enough fuel to get there.
I wouldn't even be surprised if you actually believed this. This is how insane the entire concept of space missions sounds to me.
 
Oct 27, 2015
8,724
1,496
355
Unmanned spacecraft is fine. Congrats to China. Not boasting for America or Russia, but it has been done. Glad to see they done it too.

However, a manned landing is not going to happen unless China wants to chnace sending people to their deaths. Until we can accurately predict solar flares, we should never send manned spacecrafts on the borders of our magnetosphere. That's why we had never done a landing again because America found out what they were doing was actually risky.
 
Last edited:
Dec 20, 2018
13
6
75
Unmanned spacecraft is fine. Congrats to China. Not boasting for America or Russia, but it has been done. Glad to see they done it too.

However, a manned landing is not going to happen unless China wants to chnace sending people to their deaths. Until we can accurately predict solar flares, we should never send manned spacecrafts on the borders of our magnetosphere. That's why we had never done a landing again because America found out what they were doing was actually risky.
When has risk ever stopped superpowers from doing what they want to do? The only risk in doing another mission to the moon is that people will see how fake it is because they can't hide behind shitty black and white television sets from the sixties.
 
Jan 7, 2018
751
458
265
I hope we go back to the moon at some point. After that we can really focus on going to Mars. Would be great to get HD video from the Moon and Mars.
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,467
1,961
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
I wouldn't even be surprised if you actually believed this. This is how insane the entire concept of space missions sounds to me.
Did you just solely sign up just to be a counterweight to logic?

Seriously, what would you want to know?
When has risk ever stopped superpowers from doing what they want to do? The only risk in doing another mission to the moon is that people will see how fake it is because they can't hide behind shitty black and white television sets from the sixties.
On the contrary, the moon missions in the 60's were legit insanity given with what they had to work with. But at the same time, with the massive advancements in tech, means that shit is also infinitely more complex and thus prone to failure. The 60's were high end but still relatively simple in tech.

This is why any new space mission will likely run on processors that are 2-3 decades behind the curve in terms of performance. To survive in space they need to be hardened. They also need to be extremely stable. Which is why the most modern thing you can buy now is literally the first multi-core CPU with something that appears to be semi-modern, DDR3 support, and such.
 
Dec 20, 2018
13
6
75
Did you just solely sign up just to be a counterweight to logic?
The 60's were high end but still relatively simple in tech.
What logic? The logic of space travel? Because I've thought about the 'logic' of space travel enough to know that it's absolutely insanity for it to work as they claim it does.

Let's take a look at this 'high end' tech of the sixties.

Literal Papier-mache, tin-foil and scotch tape. This is what we are supposed to believe went to the moon. Absolutely LAUGHABLE. These missions don't hold up to scrutiny.
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,467
1,961
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
What logic? The logic of space travel? Because I've thought about the 'logic' of space travel enough to know that it's absolutely insanity for it to work as they claim it does.
Lets start with something simple then. Do you believe radiation hardened CPU's:
  • Exist?
  • Are done in redundancy in order to not have something like flipped bits occur?
  • If they do exist, why are they radiation-hardened for space then?
Let's take a look at this 'high end' tech of the sixties.



Literal Papier-mache, tin-foil and scotch tape.
  • You know the materials on that lander?
  • Secondarily, do you think heat shields are needed when going in a re-entry to Earth?
This is what we are supposed to believe went to the moon. Absolutely LAUGHABLE. These missions don't hold up to scrutiny.
I am talking about the Apollo Guidance Computer or AGC in specific when referring to high-tech.

That being said, can you prove that its paper mache? Can you prove your claim that these missions do not hold up?
 
Likes: sol_bad
Jan 31, 2018
1,411
353
250
We have eyes for a reason. We have senses for a reason. You literally have to force yourself not to believe your eyes and senses when delving into this stuff. Talk about mental gymnastics. Science will literally tell you in some cases that your eyes are deceiving you in plain truths.
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,467
1,961
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
We have eyes for a reason. We have senses for a reason. You literally have to force yourself not to believe your eyes and senses when delving into this stuff. Talk about mental gymnastics. Science will literally tell you in some cases that your eyes are deceiving you in plain truths.
I don't think the questions asked are unreasonable. If one decides to say that they are fake and its obviously just paper and all that, then i expect you to know what the actual materials are on that lander.

Since photo's are doubted, lets do an examination on several arguments, nicked from Wikipedia. Pictures will be missing, but for reference, here is the actual link so you may not think i am spoofing you.

Take your time reading the arguments and sources provided, because i understand it will be enticing to blanket shrug everything off.
Moon-landing conspiracists focus heavily on NASA photos. They point to oddities in photos and films taken on the Moon. Photography experts (including those unrelated to NASA) have replied that the oddities are consistent with what should be expected from a real Moon landing, and are not consistent with tweaked or studio imagery. Some main arguments and counter-arguments are listed below.

1. In some photos, the crosshairs appear to be behind objects. The cameras were fitted with a Réseau plate (a clear glass plate with a reticle etched on), making it impossible for any photographed object to appear "in front" of the grid. Conspiracists often use this evidence to suggest that objects were "pasted" over the photographs, and hence obscure the reticle.

  • This effect only appears in copied and scanned photos, not any originals. It is caused by overexposure: the bright white areas of the emulsion "bleed" over the thin black crosshairs. The crosshairs are only about 0.004 inches thick (0.1 mm) and emulsion would only have to bleed about half that much to fully obscure it. Furthermore, there are many photos where the middle of the crosshair is "washed-out" but the rest is intact. In some photos of the American flag, parts of one crosshair appear on the red stripes, but parts of the same crosshair are faded or invisible on the white stripes. There would have been no reason to "paste" white stripes onto the flag.[84]

2. Crosshairs are sometimes rotated or in the wrong place.


  • This is a result of popular photos being cropped and/or rotated for aesthetic impact.[84]

3. The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.



4. There are no stars in any of the photos; the Apollo 11 astronauts also stated in post-mission press conferences that they did not remember seeing any stars during EVA.[88] Conspiracists contend that NASA chose not to put the stars into the photos because astronomers would have been able to use them to determine whether the photos were taken from the Earth or the Moon, by means of identifying them and comparing their celestial position and parallax to what would be expected for either observation site.

  • The astronauts were talking about naked-eye sightings of stars during the lunar daytime. They regularly sighted stars through the spacecraft navigation optics while aligning their inertial reference platforms, the Apollo PGNCS.[89]
  • Stars are rarely seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, Earth observation photos, or even photos taken at sporting events held at night. The light from the Sun in outer space in the Earth-Moon system is at least as bright as the sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface on a clear day at noon, so cameras used for imaging subjects illuminated by sunlight are set for a daylight exposure. The dim light of the stars simply does not provide enough exposure to record visible images. All manned landings happened during the lunar daytime. Thus, the stars were outshone by the sun and by sunlight reflected off the Moon's surface. The astronauts' eyes were adapted to the sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars.[90][91] The astronauts could see stars with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon.[92][93]

  • Camera settings can turn a well-lit background to black when the foreground object is brightly lit, forcing the camera to increase shutter speed so that the foreground light does not wash out the image. A demonstration of this effect is here.[94] The effect is similar to not being able to see stars from a brightly lit car park at night – the stars only become visible when the lights are turned off.

  • A special far ultraviolet camera, the Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph, was taken to the lunar surface on Apollo 16 and operated in the shadow of the Apollo Lunar Module (LM). It took photos of Earth and of many stars, some of which are dim in visible light but bright in the ultraviolet. These observations were later matched with observations taken by orbiting ultraviolet telescopes. Furthermore, the positions of those stars with respect to Earth are correct for the time and location of the Apollo 16 photos.[95][96]


  • Photos of the planet Venus (which is much brighter than any of the stars) were taken from the Moon's surface by astronaut Alan Shepard during the Apollo 14 mission.[98]

5. The angle and color of shadows are inconsistent. This suggests that artificial lights were used.

  • Shadows on the Moon are complicated by reflected light, uneven ground, wide-angle lens distortion, and lunar dust. There are several light sources: the Sun, sunlight reflected from the Earth, sunlight reflected from the Moon's surface, and sunlight reflected from the astronauts and the Lunar Module. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many directions, including into shadows. Shadows falling into craters and hills may appear longer, shorter and distorted.[99] Furthermore, shadows display the properties of vanishing point perspective, leading them to converge to a point on the horizon.
  • This theory was further debunked on the MythBusters episode "NASA Moon Landing".
6. There are identical backgrounds in photos which, according to their captions, were taken miles apart. This suggests that a painted background was used.
  • Backgrounds were not identical, just similar. What appear as nearby hills in some photos are actually mountains many miles away. On Earth, objects that are further away will appear fainter and less detailed. On the Moon, there is no atmosphere or haze to obscure faraway objects, thus they appear clearer and nearer.[100] Furthermore, there are very few objects (such as trees) to help judge distance. One such case is debunked in "Who Mourns For Apollo?" by Mike Bara.[101]

7. The number of photos taken is implausibly high. Up to one photo per 50 seconds.[102]
  • Simplified gear with fixed settings allowed two photos a second. Many were taken immediately after each other as stereo pairs or panorama sequences. The calculation (one per 50 seconds) was based on a lone astronaut on the surface, and does not take into account that there were two astronauts sharing the workload and simultaneously taking photographs during an Extra-vehicular activity (EVA).
8. The photos contain artifacts like the two seemingly matching 'C's on a rock and on the ground. These may be labeled studio props.

  • The "C"-shaped objects are most likely printing imperfections and do not appear in the original film from the camera. It has been suggested that the "C" is a coiled hair.[101][103]

9. A resident of Perth, Western Australia, a woman named Una Ronald (a pseudonym created by the authors of the source[104]), said that for two or three seconds she saw a Coca-Cola bottle roll across the lower right quadrant of her television screen that was displaying the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 EVA. She also said that several letters appeared in The West Australian discussing the Coca-Cola bottle incident within ten days of the lunar landing.[105]

  • No such newspaper reports or recordings have been found.[106] Ronald's claims have only been relayed by one source.[33] There are also flaws in the story, e.g. the statement that she had to stay up late to watch the Moon landing live is easily discounted by many witnesses in Australia who watched the landing in the middle of their daytime.[107][108]

10. The book Moon Shot[109] contains an obviously fake composite photo of Alan Shepard hitting a golf ball on the Moon with another astronaut.

  • It was used instead of the only existing real images, from the TV monitor, which the editors seemingly felt were too grainy for their book. The book publishers did not work for NASA.

11. There appear to be "hot spots" in some photos that look like a large spotlight was used in place of the sun.

  • Pits on the Moon's surface focus and reflect light like the tiny glass spheres used in the coating of street signs, or dewdrops on wet grass. This creates a glow around the photographer's own shadow when it appears in a photograph (see Heiligenschein).
  • If the astronaut is standing in sunlight while photographing into shade, light reflected off his white spacesuit yields a similar effect to a spotlight.[26]
  • Some widely published Apollo photos were high-contrast copies. Scans of the original transparencies are generally much more evenly lit. An example is shown below:

12. Who filmed Neil Armstrong stepping onto the Moon?

  • The Lunar Module did. While still on the Module's ladder steps, Armstrong deployed the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly from the side of the Lunar Module, unpacking, amongst other things, the TV camera. The TV camera was then powered on and a signal transmitted to the command module, which beamed the live signal back to Earth. This meant that upwards of 600 million people on Earth could watch the live feed with only a very slight delay. Similar technology was also used on subsequent Apollo missions.
Environment

1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see radiation poisoning and health threat from cosmic rays). Some conspiracists have suggested that Starfish Prime (a high-altitude nuclear test in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.
  • There are two main Van Allen belts – the inner belt and the outer belt – and a transient third belt.[110] The inner belt is the more dangerous one, containing energetic protons. The outer one has less-dangerous low-energy electrons (Beta particles).[111][112] The Apollo spacecraft passed through the inner belt in a matter of minutes and the outer belt in about 1 1⁄2 hours.[112] The astronauts were shielded from the ionizing radiation by the aluminum hulls of the spacecraft.[112][113] Furthermore, the orbital transfer trajectory from Earth to the Moon through the belts was chosen to lessen radiation exposure.[113] Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too harmful for the Apollo missions.[114] Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem (10 mSv), which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[115] The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year[112][116] and not much more than what Space Shuttle astronauts received.[111]

2. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation.

  • The film was kept in metal containers that stopped radiation from fogging the film's emulsion.[117] Furthermore, film carried by unmanned lunar probes such as the Lunar Orbiter and Luna 3 (which used on-board film development processes) was not fogged.

3. The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted.

  • There is no atmosphere to efficiently bind lunar surface heat to devices (such as cameras) that are not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. The physics of radiative heat transfer are thoroughly understood, and the proper use of passive optical coatings and paints was enough to control the temperature of the film within the cameras; Lunar Module temperatures were controlled with similar coatings that gave them a gold color. Also, while the Moon's surface does get very hot at lunar noon, every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing site; the Moon's day is about 29 1⁄2 Earth days long, meaning that one Moon day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly fifteen Earth days. During the longer stays, the astronauts did notice increased cooling loads on their spacesuits as the sun and surface temperature continued to rise, but the effect was easily countered by the passive and active cooling systems.[118] The film was not in direct sunlight, so it was not overheated.[119]

4. The Apollo 16 crew could not have survived a big solar flare firing out when they were on their way to the Moon.

  • No large solar flare occurred during the flight of Apollo 16. There were large solar flares in August 1972, after Apollo 16 returned to Earth and before the flight of Apollo 17.[120][121]
5. The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts fluttered despite there being no wind on the Moon. This suggests that it was filmed on Earth and a breeze caused the flag to flutter. Sibrel said that it may have been caused by indoor fans used to cool the astronauts since their spacesuit cooling systems would have been too heavy on Earth.

  • The flag was fastened to a Г-shaped rod (see Lunar Flag Assembly) so that it did not hang down. The flag only seemed to flutter when the astronauts were moving it into position. Without air drag, these movements caused the free corner of the flag to swing like a pendulum for some time. The flag was rippled because it had been folded during storage – the ripples could be mistaken for movement in a still photo. Videos show that when the astronauts let go of the flagpole it vibrates briefly but then remains still.[122][123][124]
  • This theory was further debunked on the MythBusters episode "NASA Moon Landing".

6. Footprints in the Moondust are unexpectedly well preserved, despite the lack of moisture.

  • Moondust has not been weathered like Earth sand and has sharp edges. This allows the dust particles to stick together and hold their shape in the vacuum. The astronauts likened it to "talcum powder or wet sand".[101]
  • This theory was further debunked on the MythBusters episode "NASA Moon Landing".
7. The alleged Moon landings used either a sound stage or were filmed outside in a remote desert with the astronauts either using harnesses or slow-motion photography to make it look like they were on the Moon.

  • While the HBO miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon", and a scene from the movie "Apollo 13" used the sound-stage and harness setup, it is clearly seen from those films that when dust rose it did not quickly settle; some dust briefly formed clouds. In the film footage from the Apollo missions, dust kicked up by the astronauts' boots and the wheels of the Lunar Roving Vehicles rose quite high due to the lower lunar gravity, and settled quickly to the ground in an uninterrupted parabolic arc since there was no air to suspend the dust. Even if there had been a sound stage for hoax Moon landings that had the air pumped out, the dust would have reached nowhere near the height and trajectory as in the Apollo film footage because of Earth's greater gravity.

  • During the Apollo 15 mission, David Scott did an experiment by dropping a hammer and a falcon feather at the same time. Both fell at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. This proved that he was in a vacuum.[125]

  • If the landings were filmed outside in a desert, heat waves would be present on the surface in mission videos, but no such heat waves exist in the footage. If the landings were filmed in a sound stage, several anomalies would occur, including a lack of parallax, and an increase or decrease in the size of the backdrop if the camera moved (footage was filmed while the rover was in motion, and yet no evidence of any change in the size of the background is present).


Lets end with a independent third party list about the moon landings. Independent, as described as:
''Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings is evidence, or analysis of evidence, about Moon landings that does not come from either NASA or the U.S. government (the first party), or the Apollo Moon landing hoax theorists (the second party). This evidence serves as independent confirmation of NASA's account of the Moon landings.''
 
Jan 31, 2018
1,411
353
250
What is all that? No one asked for any of that. He was talking about the lander and what it looks like.



You ask what proof we have and the proof is in common sense. If you look at that picture what does it look like? Sure doesn’t look like space age material. It looks super flimsy. Again, your argument basically asks us to turn our brains off and believe whatever garbage they tell us. If I see terry cloth, foil or crinkly paper I’m going to think it’s crinkly paper because it has crinkles in it therefore more than likely it isn’t all that sturdy. When people have seen the lander close up with their own eyes it’s the same conclusion. You have something that’s supposed to land and launch from the moon yet it’s constructed like an Eagle Scout project.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Night.Ninja

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,467
1,961
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
A selection of arguments and rebuttals regarding the photographic evidence people critical to the landing use, and a list of independent evidence confirming the moon landings were in fact real, in case you were going to doubt that later. I am just reiterating this in advance since i know where this is heading and i want to cover my own bases in advance.

No one asked for any of that. He was talking about the lander and what it looks like.
Exactly. To which i asked my questions, and (in advance) referenced that link. You are not going to shrug it away like i already expected that you would.

You ask what proof we have and the proof is in common sense.
Alright, proof the common sense then since i don't believe you based on your history and your deeply rooted desire to explain all of Earth's advancements through the Holy Spirit or shrugging away actual common sense when it does not fit your side of the bargain.

Oh right, that's what my two links, which you shrugged off as ''What is all that?''.

If you look at that picture what does it look like? Sure doesn’t look like space age material. It looks super flimsy.
Can you tell me what materials it is made off?

You do know that metals can wrinkle in space, yes? You do know that space-resistant and heat-resistant foil made of strong materials also exists, no?

Again, your argument basically asks us to turn our brains off and believe whatever garbage they tell us.
With they i guess you assume NASA or the USA. Guess what, that's where the third party evidence comes in. Unless you want to believe they too fall under the conspiracy, in which case it would require you to back up that stance.

Spoiler, the answer is not George Soros or the Rothschild family.

I'm having SMT4 feelings from this thread LMAO
I am of the firm belief that GAF should be protected from opinions that go beyond the realm of differing opinion due to either religious or political context and into complete and utter denouncement of scientific progress. What's more, the only counter rebuttal so far is ''I look at with my own eyes and that's what i see.'' which ofcourse, is in these instance never a valid barometer. I want to know what the materials are, i want to know the statistics, i want to know the data these deniers use to come up with their conclusions.

I believe they go through several mental hoops to arrive at that conclusion. The difference is that they have yet to provide evidence that it is, in fact, not a mental hoop that they are going through.
 
Jan 31, 2018
1,411
353
250
Have you "We never went to the moon" idiots ever wondered why they needed a rocket the size of a skyscraper to get there but only something the size of a car to get back?
Have you ever wondered why every single space launch of any sort always arcs off into the ocean instead of straight up? Or why they don’t just launch like jets do off aircraft carriers since the earth is round or...sorry...an oblate spheroid, even though it’s always round in every pic we’ve ever seen?

I believe they go through several mental hoops to arrive at that conclusion. The difference is that they have yet to provide evidence that it is, in fact, not a mental hoop that they are going through.
Except literally NONE of the “evidence” is YOUR OWN. it’s someone else’s “sound doctrine” that you’re simply regurgitating.
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
2,467
1,961
395
Unknown Body, Proxima Centauri, 4th O.B.
Except literally NONE of the “evidence” is YOUR OWN.
By that logic i can denounce every religious scripture and every moral/ethical message they have since it was written by others and it was not observed by you nor me.

Does not really fly like that huh.

it’s someone else’s “sound doctrine” that you’re simply regurgitating.
The irony of you saying that when being aware of what topics you are devoted for is just mind-boggling.

I provided evidence atleast. All you did so far is go ''Nah ah'' and ''None of the evidence is your own, so..''

It seems to me you just don't want a geniune discussion and either do two things:
  • Refer to scriptures as evidence. Based on the logic you just used against me, that evidence isn't your own.
  • Laugh away evidence whilst simultaneously not providing anything to the contrary to back up your own statement.

So what does that lead me then?
  • To me it sounds like you are being against the basic concepts of most things just for the sake of it. Which, by any means is not productive view to hold nor does it spur actual discussion.
 
Likes: Yoshi

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
34,924
426
1,135
Best Coast
Have you ever wondered why every single space launch of any sort always arcs off into the ocean instead of straight up? Or why they don’t just launch like jets do off aircraft carriers since the earth is round or...sorry...an oblate spheroid, even though it’s always round in every pic we’ve ever seen?
Yeah, until I read up on rocketry and escape velocity and other such aeronautical information that would give me insight on the differences between simply flying in the air vs. breaking Earth's gravitational pull.