Did the moon landing really happen?

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Town Drunk said:
The Vann Allen belt, the computational power of computers at the time, the launchers ability to return from the moon to earth, (the moon has less gravity but it still has gravity), the fact we've never returned, and the Soviets failure.
Click to expand...
The Van Allen belt isn't that big of a deal for the short time they went through it. How much computational power do you think we need for that? It's a few basic equations, not even a lot of differential equations that have to be solved. You could conceivably do it with a slide rule.
As for why nobody has returned, well, the race was over, the program was expensive, and there wasn't that much benefit to gain from all the expense.
I'd argue that the Soviets' failure is a strong argument that the American moon landings were not fake. Surely the Soviets, if they had any conceivable doubt on the veracity of the American landings, would have voiced that very publicly, and not conceded the space race.

Pretty sure the technology isn't really an issue. Like, if a country really decided they wanted to land on the Moon, they could do it. There's nothing preventing anyone, except that it is disgustingly expensive for something that doesn't have much benefit apart from being a staging area for something even more expensive.
Now I'd love to see another moon landing in my time, but I can understand why it takes a while. Even in the 60s you had people protesting them because why go to the Moon when there's niggers requiring gibs on Earth?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rimanah, Lowlife Adventures, Pedophobe and 2 others
If it's proven false beyond reasonable doubt I will kill myself on the spot.
 
regalterry said:
Does anyone here genuinely think that the Soviets/Russians or Chinese wouldn't have exposed the hoax to embarrass the US if the landings were indeed staged?
Click to expand...
How would they expose the hoax? Who is going to believe or listen to them at the height of the cold war? When the Western media that has a grip on most of the world? And thats before we assume they aren't also in on it.


See how unsurprised Putin is
 
Margo Martindale said:
You can't see the lander or rover on the moon
Click to expand...
Yeh. Telescope technology is lagging behind interplanetary travel. If you send the telescope into moon orbit, it picks up the image nicely enough, but then the moon hoaxing retards claim those are fake too. The math shows that it could be there and still be invisible though.
Margo Martindale said:
Apparently we have 'lost' the technology to go back to the moon (how the hell does that happen?)
Click to expand...
We lose technology all the time. Our air superiority fighter, the F22... we can't make more of them. When they finished building the last run of them, the tooling was dismantled, the factories can't crank out the airframe anymore. We don't know how to make new toolings, the blueprints are lost. We don't have the original engineers, they've retired and even died. If you read enough (and read carefully), you'll constantly stumble across more examples. Sometimes technology is lost when offshored, the 6 months it takes to shut down here and spin up a factory in China is enough for shit to get lost (hopefully, that's only for consumer-grade shit, and not military, but sometimes I wonder).
Margo Martindale said:
Some people say the movements of the astronauts look fake as if they were models pulled by string
Click to expand...
But the people who say this are faggoty dinguses who wouldn't be able to find their own asshole with a flashlight and both hands. It's not as if they're 40 yr veterans of the Hollywood special effects industry who have staged and filmed so many similar shots that they can tell. They're high school dropouts who watch too many Youtube videos (if they weren't zoomers, it'd at least be too many B movies, but with this generation even that's too much effort, they don't have the attention span).

The moon denialists originally were stooges for some Russian/Communist psyop, but they've taken it and ran with it for so long that the evidence for that origin is hard to come by.

Town Drunk said:
The Vann Allen belt, the computational power of computers at the time, the launchers ability to return from the moon to earth, (the moon has less gravity but it still has gravity), the fact we've never returned, and the Soviets failure.
Click to expand...
1. The US government didn't give a shit about the survivability of the trip, astronauts were expendable. A counterpoint of "they would have gotten horrible cancers" mostly pans out. They did. No one cares.
2. Everything was pre-computed, and it was fucking perilous despite that.
3. Returning was easy... launching from the moon doesn't require much delta v. They had something in a lunar orbit to meet up with to take them home, leaving lunar orbit doesn't require much delta v. Everything else was falling back to the ground safely.
4. We never returned because it was the world's most expensive dick-measuring contest, and after you win there's no need for a rematch.
5. The Soviets failed because they were a tyrannical death cult who abused their finest people thinking that the only motivator worth trying was to threaten to murder them for any setback.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Rimanah, Vyse Inglebard, Whatevermancer and 2 others
We went to the moon but they hid from us that the goal was to piss on the moon to mark our territory.
 
If we can't recreate the accomplishment, does it matter either way?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: SilkGnut
Meriasek said:
How much computational power do you think we need for that?
Click to expand...
Jewish movies taught me it was basically one fat nigger bitch who did all the calculations on a blackboard.

But kidding aside, the arguments against it being fake are basically that it wouldn't have been possible to stage it and that astronauts had too much integrity to lie. Well, the first of these is false just by the fact that Kubrick shot 2001 before the moon landings, and it looks less fake. The second is false by the fact that we have actual footage of Apollo program astronauts in low earth orbit covering up a window and staging a photograph of the Earth to look like they're much further away. So, we know they aren't above misleading the public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawdler
There were like over 20+ Apollo missions that were launched. Apollo 1 and 13 were respective failures. Apollo 1 literally launch caught fire and Apollo 13 was never able to land on the moon.
Apollo 11,12,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 all went to the moon to collect rocks gear and equipment and etc....
regalterry said:
Does anyone here genuinely think that the Soviets/Russians or Chinese wouldn't have exposed the hoax to embarrass the US if the landings were indeed staged?

No, the real reason people doubt the Moon landings is that they can't reconcile the racially homogenous USA of the past with the mongrelized, dysgenic USA of the present. One could put a man on the Moon with computers weaker than many modern calculators, the other can't even tell you what a woman is.
Click to expand...
This sadly we spent all this money on social programs and mass migration and instead Americans quality of life didn't really improve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: regalterry
If the Moon Landings weren’t real, how did Apollo-Soyuz happen? For that matter, how did Skylab missions happen?
 
Cedric_Eff said:
If the Moon Landings weren’t real, how did Apollo-Soyuz happen? For that matter, how did Skylab missions happen?
Click to expand...
Nobody said nothing wasn't really high in the sky
98sdfyy44.webp
98sdyf4354.webp
You can see the ISS if you have a high quality zoom camera
87sdyf7y4.webp
hm doesn't seem that far away
9sdufdsh4.webp
 
ChefBourgeoisie said:
Telescope technology is lagging behind interplanetary travel.
Click to expand...
There are hard physical limits to optical telescopes. You'd need a MASSIVE telescope to see something like the landers on the Moon from Earth.
Like, 100m aperture primary mirror. Rather impractical.
NoBueno said:
hm doesn't seem that far away
Click to expand...
It isn't, compared to the Moon. Like, the ISS orbits at around 400 km, while the Moon is 300,000 km away. For optical imagery, that's a huge difference.
 
The fact that there's multiple recordings of it and the fact that one of the recordings was accidentally recorded over similar to one of the early Super Bowl recordings means that we indeed made it to the moon multiple times.
 
cigint said:
Jewish movies taught me it was basically one fat nigger bitch who did all the calculations on a blackboard.

But kidding aside, the arguments against it being fake are basically that it wouldn't have been possible to stage it and that astronauts had too much integrity to lie. Well, the first of these is false just by the fact that Kubrick shot 2001 before the moon landings, and it looks less fake. The second is false by the fact that we have actual footage of Apollo program astronauts in low earth orbit covering up a window and staging a photograph of the Earth to look like they're much further away. So, we know they aren't above misleading the public.
Click to expand...

This is the main thing that makes me doubt the official story. If everything was above-board about the moon landings, why this? If some footage was faked, why is it impossible for more footage to have been faked? If NASA was willing to fake that, what would it not have been willing to fake? Why did their distance from the Earth have to be staged in the first place?

The astronauts that have supposedly been to the Moon tend to act pretty strangely as well:


Rambling about "truth's protective layers," and "The only bird that could talk was the parrot; and he didn’t fly very well" before looking at Clinton and saying "Don't worry, I won't talk very long." ???

Or this:


You can dismiss it as an old man losing his mind, but even if you take "cuz we didn't go there, and that's the way it happened" as meaning we didn't go back, it still feels like the same vibe of uncomfortable rambling of Armstrong. Like he can't speak honestly and he's trying to think and speak on his feet.

Even as far back as the original missions:


The mood of the astronauts, supposedly just back from a world-historic accomplishment, is fucking grim, they keep looking downward, and they don't seem to be able to speak more than three words or so without pausing. After coming right back from skipping and dancing around on the Moon. One moment that really struck me is Armstrong saying around 55:17 "the entire program -- it's the beginning of a new age" with his jaw clenched and staring downward.

It seems they're using teleprompters directing them what to say -- but how would that work, given that they were the only ones who went to the Moon? Who wrote for the teleprompters?

Then there's Bart Sibrel -- he's a bit annoying, but his "astronauts gone wild" documentary is insane. Not one astronaut able to just calmly assert that he'd been to the Moon. Just aggression, hedging, nervousness. If someone starts questioning whether I've ever been to Kroger I wouldn't act like that.

You can't prove anything from body language, but I personally just don't buy it.
 
Last edited:
We never stopped sending people to the moon. Busloads of them, three times a day, every day, for fifty years. There are approximately 3 million people currently on or in the moon, and possibly ten times that many in the Greater Lunar Region.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: ita
Meriasek said:
It isn't, compared to the Moon. Like, the ISS orbits at around 400 km, while the Moon is 300,000 km away. For optical imagery, that's a huge difference.
Click to expand...
This is a Jumbo jet maybe 10km up at the most, considering it looks like its still climbing I'd say half that
78sdy7fy4.webp
I guess I'll just post this video that I went to the source for and then found it's been wiped, you decide
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back