If he did, anybody have any proof?
check out illumintiwatcher on youtube he does a good exposee on it
Have no proof, nor do I believe in the conspiracy, but he totally could have, the man had skills beyond most people's comprehension with that camera at the time
>>17860836
will do
>>17860833
he did. filmed in location
Anybody who believes the moon landing was faked is a fucking retard. The Soviets would have jumped at the opportunity to make America look bad and shit they even confirmed our craft went up there!
room 237 af
If you don't understand that the original moon landing was faked you're a fucking mongoloid
>>17861486
Tell me how the moon landing was faked when you can buy an extremely powerful telescope and see the fucking evidence of them there. Fucking autistic little kid.
Its only proof as long as you accept it
because in your mind its not the case if you reject it
lets say we do have proof
what then
why pretend
that you can actually do something to them
maybe just maybe
the russians are just another branch of them
coincidentally their all called government
but maybe you didnt notice
because the news served a notice
and told us
you only have 2 choices
black or white
wrong or right
whats right is wrong but were with this team so its all right
its all real
nothing is wrong
were telling the truth at all time
we really want to protect you
but we wont do it for free
and even if you provided everything
the need to just would be in me
yea....
>>17861512
>the russians are just another branch of them
>coincidentally their all called government
It's like he throws words in a blender, waits for some words to fly out, then strings them together and posts them.
>>17861499
Having fun you fucking mongoloid?
>>17861499
that's a lie and you know it. liar.
>>17861528
it's called being high
>>17860889
yes
>>17861442
what if they sent a craft but didn't actually land?
>>17861486
tell us more
>>17861499
what kind of telescope, i will buy one
Photos of Apollo landing sites on the Moon
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/
The fact that there isn't any evidence the moon landing was faked just proves how devious NASA really is.
How to use a telescope to find Lunar Landing sites:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/
So. Many. Mongoloids
Why is everyone is this thread so angry
>>17861499
lies and you know it
http://www.thevintagenews.com/2015/10/05/so-nasa-got-sick-of-all-that-conspiracy-thing-and-released-over-10000-photos-from-the-apollo-moon-mission/
Christ
All these fucking 12 yo
I think the really important question is who cares?
>>17861594
>>17861623
>>17861639
Damage control.
>>17863084
>proof
>"damage control"
What the fuck?
what's a mongoloid? it sounds like an std you get on your dick.
>>17863149
>proof
You consider that proof? Shooped images from Nasa?
>>17863084
Buzzwords
>>17860833
look at your own pic you big silly goose
Why do you care about if we landed, and not about what's actually there?
>>17860833
"Kubrick" in that one interview was referred to as "Tom" at one point, berated by the interviewer for going off script, and seemed to be pretty out of it most of the time.
The moon landing video that was shown live on television was directed by Kubrick. He was tasked with making an essentially controlled version, because they had no idea what they would find. The feed from the moon never would have been live anyway, so they had the opportunity to pull the plug on whatever they actually found, and use the control reel instead. It was very carefully orchestrated.
The "proof", or good evidence, is Stanley Kubrick's entire filmography after 2001 and Doctor Strangelove.
Look up the Jim Harold interview with Jay Weidner. There's also a video on YouTube of Stanley himself admitting that he faked it, and explaining why. The video was filmed shortly before he passed away and was designated to be released 15 years after his death. You can even see the warping of the film reel since it was stored for a decade and a half.
Decide for yourself.
>>17861499
Hey dumbass. Nobody ever said that Apollo never made it to the moon. The argument is that the official video was a cover up directed by Stanley Kubrick. They've been to the moon several times.
>>17861740
Because everyone believes that they're exclusively right, and anyone who contradicts them is wrong. It's called being stubborn.
>>17863308
is there a video on youtube of it?
>>17863331
Search YouTube for Stanley Kubrick moon landing interview. Watch it carefully. Take notes. Report back what you believe.
>>17860833
>>17861740
welcome to /x/
>>17863340
And? This was a meeting for 2001: A Space Odyssey you fucking idiot, of course he was going to consult with NASA about conditions in space, THAT'S WHAT THE MOVIE WAS ABOUT
>>17863362
Stop being so angry dude. Just chill.
>>17863362
LOL you made my day.
>tfw you realize some people actually seriously believe the moon landing was faked
>>17861499
Djinns placed the flags and mirrors there for NASA
Truth
>>17863372
THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED BEFORE YOU YET YOU STILL GRASP ON TO STRAWS HOPING ITS A MASSIVE CONSPIRACY WHEN ITS NOT
IF ANYONE NEEDS TO CHILL IT'S YOU
>>17860833
No.
That was a movie.
>>17863324
a coverup of what?
>>17860833
The number one reason why I don't believe in the moon landing is because we haven't fakes a "Mars" landing yet.
>>17863084
>Is presented with irrefutable proof
>Denies proof
>>17863422
I love how much of /x/ is just shitty half-remembered hollywood movies people mistake for reality.
There's this. "Grays" are just the aliens from an old TV movie. The Chupacabra just comes from a crazy lady who saw the movie Species and couldn't tell fantasy from reality. Wonder how much else comes from Hollywood.
>>17863447
Irony
I will debunk all "moon landing was a hoax" theories.
Taking all challengers.
>>17863437
>irrefutable proof
I beg to differ.
How can teh moon be real if our eyes aren't real?
>>17863148
speak for yourself buddy
>>17863167
It's a person of mongol descent.
Coincidentally, it's also a type of mental retardation.
http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html
>The Apollo astronauts underwent intensive >training in preparation for their Moon >explorations. Over the several years prior to >the Moon missions, scientific and >photographic training was provided. >Astronauts were encouraged to take training >cameras on trips to become more familiar with >the camera operation and to enhance their >photographic technique. Tutorials were >provided to the crews on the equipment, its >operation, as well as on the scientific >purposes. The crews visited geologic sites in >Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii, frequently >simulating their lunar traverse, completely >outfitted with sample bags, checklists, >simulated backpacks, lunar rock hammer, >core-sampling equipment, and typically using >Hasselblad EL cameras similar to those they >would use on the Moon. As the use of the >camera was mostly automated, the most >crucial training was in pointing the camera >which was attached to their chest control >packs for the suit's environmental control >system. The astronaut would point his body in >order to aim the cameras. Films taken during >the practice exercises were processed and >returned to the crewmen who would study the >results.
The shots were picture perfect and kubrick was the guy who did it.
>>17863494
You're welcome to try to refute it.
Simply denying it isn't the same thing as refuting.
>>17861499
>seeing things that where built into the moon from the start are somehow proof of moon landing the 60s
>>17863424
That the US didn't win the space race, the sovjets did.
Its the same as with the star wars program (missile defense) - making it look real for propaganda.
>>17863389
>being this new
Welcome online
>>17863318
>There's also a video on YouTube of Stanley himself admitting that he faked it, and explaining why
Of a guy who looks little like Kubrick and gets called Tom, and has tge interviewer coaching him on what to say through almost the entire thing because "Kubrick" is inattentive and forgetful.
>>17863615
Explain.
The USSR beat the U.S. into space. Nobody denies that. The apollo footage doesn't cover that up.
The U.S. beat the USSR in putting a man on the moon. You admit that as a given. So thus fake footage of a moon landing that really happened doesn't cover up anything.
>>17863494
>Is presented with irrefutable proof
>Denies proof
Us not landing on the moon is up there with the Holohaux as pants on the head retarded.
The Lunar Laser Ranging project was utilized by MIT, the fucking Soviet Union, France, Japan, and then some.
We didn't send men on the moon but we successfully landed massive orbiters, vehicles, and these mirrors but we couldn't be bothered to include men? The fuck out of here. This is the dumbest conspiracy theory out there.
>>17863665
Don't try to bring logic or facts into this, it makes these people's atrophied brains hurt.
>>17863651
I suggest suicide, or at least never reproducing.
>>17863736
Yeah, after all I dont want my children to live in a world were man never landed on the moon
You keep making these points that totally convince me that you know what you are talking about and are not just a lunatic or a troll
https://youtu.be/_loUDS4c3Cs
just watch this fags
>>17863717
>logic or facts
Good goy.
>>17863756
>lunatic
Heh.
>>17863756
More so you don't pass on your retarded beliefs on to them.
>>17863776
I have shekels, at least.
>>17863494
>I beg to differ.
Well then, go ahead
We're waiting
>>17863768
I saw that a while back and just roll my eyes at these sorts of threads now, there's absolutely no room for speculation after watching that video
itt people who are jealous that they couldn't go to the moon.
you know i'm right
>>17863909
I think people here believe that nowadays we have the power to go there now but the tech in 1969 was too primitive to get there and back without a hitch. It was mainly about timing and trajectory which was hard to calculate then, but not impossible. Besides, is space walking and landing on the moon really all that far off? People never seem to frame the Soviets for going to space and leaving their capsules to walk around but god forbid the Americans land on the moon nearly a decade later and it's staged.
However on the flip side of the coin I don't blame people for believing so. The United States government at the time had done some mind-boggling things and the Kennedy assassination still had most people on edge. Not to mention there really isn't any easily visible proof aside from mirrors presumed to be set there.
daily reminder that fake moon landing, flat earth, 9/11 no plane, etc etc are government think tank endorsed "theories" whose sole purpose is to muddy the waters for legitimate conspiracies.
"you believe the government is complicit in the 9/11 attacks? i bet you think the earth is flat too!"
>>17863976
>their really isn't any visible proof aside from the mirrors
and photographs and film and rocks that they brought back and....
>>17864011
>This conspiracy is really just a conspiracy!
You're only piling stupid on top of stupid.
Do you believe that all conspiracy theories are real? Do you believe it's impossible that some conspiracy theories out there are just false, and only stupid people believe in them? Or are all conspiracy theories either true, or planted there by the government?
>>17863084
Mental retardation.
>>17860889
Yep, it was filmed on the moon.
>>17861442
>>17861486
Anyone else want some popcorn?
>>17863610
>things that where built into the moon from the start
>>17861442
Thank you, anon.
>>17861499
Even if the conspiritards on this thread see it, they'll just say that the telescope was tampered with, or they'll even go as far as saying that they were there originally (which is fucking stupid.)
>>17861442
Thank you! I can't believe there are people retarded enough to believe that.
>>17863447
No skinwalker or succubi blockbusters so far.
The moon landing being fake is more like a openly endorsed meme at this point. Landing on it is about as absurd as it being faked.
>>17863447
>Wonder how much else comes from Hollywood.
So you're saying a large portion of the population can have their perception of reality warped by popular media? Interesting. I wonder if they could do the same with the moon landing.
Where's the original footage of Apollo 11 by the way? Does NASA still have it?
>>17861528
You articulated what I was thinking.
>>17863410
Mate, I agree that the moon landings were real, but you need to calm down.
>>17864196
>Does NASA still have it?
Well you see Anon, NASA just "conveniently" and "coincidentally" destroyed and "lost" a vast amount of "moon footage" :^)
>>17863318
This is plausible. Kubrick could have faked the moon landing which could have actually happened anyway.
>>17864218
Never attribute to malice, that which can be achieved through incompetence.
>>17864217
STOP TELLING ME TO CHILL OUT
YOU FUCKING CHILL OUT "MATE"
>>17863447
Wow, /x/ is just a bunch of delusional people who believe that monsters/aliens from movies are real? Nobody has ever come to this conclusion before!
/sarcasm
>>17864243
*cashes check*
>>17864234
I don't think malice is required to fake the moon landing footage that was broadcast across the world so long ago.
>>17864234
Idioms were invented so that monkeys could feel smart.
>>17863768
Best post.
>>17863844
>beliefs
>>17863840
kek. that wasnt even intended
>>17864218
there is enough footage mate
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/with/72157659052908231
NO FUK U
OJ Simpson faked the Mars landing.
>>17864360
>>17864353
Yeah for the TV thing they aired for some reason. None of that is real.
>>17864353
Yeah from the TV special they aired for some reason. None of that is real.
>>17864353
That is not the original footage.
>>17864218
There has never been any lost or destroyed footage of the moon. All of the footage remains intact.
There was one copy of the footage of the moon landing in a very specific format that was intentionally deleted to make room for other stuff, but other copies of that footage on other formats remains.
>>17864353
You misunderstand.
Misplacing, destroying, or otherwise losing the footage from our first successful mission to another astronomical body is a crime against humanity. We have a right to access it, a right to copy it, and a right to protect it from harm by those that would cuck humanity. Each and every one of us has these rights to something of this magnitude.
Do you have any idea how many people have dreamed to reach the stars?
>>17864404
Bullshit.
>>17864291
You don't think lying to millions of people is malicious? I do.
>>17864243
It's not that they're delusional and stupid, anon. It's that they're so unoriginal that they can't even make up their delusions on their own, but have to plagiarize them from movies.
>>17864365
>>17864377
>>17864388
Unless you can tell me how all those pictures are fake, I have to assume you are just purposfully ignoring evidence.
>>17864409
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes
>they were never missing
It's just a back up on a different format that was, as it clearly shows, intentionally deleted.
>>17864410
Malice can do it too, but if we refuse to attribute malice, incompetence works as well.
>>17864408
>footage from our first successful mission to another astronomical body is a crime against humanity
fair enough mate. This material is indeed a treasure.
The way the post was phrased sounded like it was implying they never had footage because "it was a hoax", so I wanted to point out that there is a fuckton of evidence
>>17864432
Because the answer is: How would we know? evidence can and usually is fabricated and manipulated in many instances just like the English language can be. Your intent is weak.
>>17864425
YOU MEAN I'M NOT ORIGINALE!?
>>17864436
>the encyclopedic Jew
>trustworthy
You might as well have linked to a blog post.
Notice how these threads present little to no evidence for either side. Just angry individuals arguing with other angry individuals, waist of time.
I'm glad there are finally people on this board fighting against these lying shills. Keep it up people. Keep exposing their lies and don't stop, attack them at every turn, expose every single contradiction. Most of them cannot even think for themselves and simply parrot some shit they think is true.
>>17864502
What do you think is wrong with the article?
Which footage do you think is missing?
>>17864511
So I'm just gonna point out that it's pretty obvious that you're trying to get us to attack each other.
>>17861499
>if you buy a very powerful telescope
that's not true, you need a special device not available for common people and only used by "scientists" so it's not a proof at all
>>17864508
You, on the other hand, may have a point. I can see them intentionally censoring actual evidence.
>>17864523
Yeah no shit dingus.
>>17864043
They don't have to be invented by the specials, but they sure as hell will propagate them if they fit in well with the disinfo agenda
Stanley Kubrick never existed, he was portrayed by an actor. An actor that was David Lynch's real life uncle.
>>17864408
So much this
>>17864597
Do you think there are conspiracy theories out there that are just plain wrong, and a person would have to be stupid to believe in them?
If not the moon hoax, then which?
>>17864470
So you dont how they are fake. You cant find one little clue indicating that someone messed with this in all those 5000+ pictures but somehow you know that they are wrong. You seem to believe that cgi/ special effect are magic.
And what about all the physical evidence like the remains of the landing or the moon rocks we have here on earth?
nope, you stick your fingers in your ears and scream "FAKE FAKE FAKE"
>>17864508
>for either side
there is already a lot of evidence for it in the thread. What else do you want? I can post much more evidence
>>17864425
Well said, anon.
>>17865092
>You seem to believe that cgi/ special effect are magic.
yeah its called movie magic dingus.
>>17861635
>>17861564
>what if they sent a craft but didn't actually land?
The government would send Buzz Aldrin to fight communist jets armed with autocannons, but would draw the line at risking sending him to the moon?
This is the official footage of the Apollo lunar module actually taking off from the surface, and some people actually believe it.
>>17865429
This right here is the smoking gun.
>>17865131
>>17865429
kek
Please tell me what is "fake" about it
>>17865429
Yeah, I believe it. Pretty damn hard to fake in the early 1970s.
Why shouldn't people believe it?
>>17864531
>putting scientists in quotations
Tinfoil hat detected
>>17865501
>landing on the moon = easy
>faking a moon landing = pretty damn hard
k
>>17865501
>Pretty damn hard to fake in the early 1970s.
Meanwhile in 1929
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQlwhG76P9A
>>17865522
>>17865517
Yes? Yes.
see
>>17863768
They didn't have cgi technology back in the 70s. Oh maybe NASA had super secret prototype cgi technology just to fake the moon landing. But now you're inventing magic technologies just to fill the holes in your conspiracy theories.
>>17865529
Ordinarily I'm on this board through days on end of insomnia and maintain constructive conversations despite being horribly sleep deprived, but for the first time ever I've found a post that I know I don't have the energy to even begin explaining the stupidity of. God help you. I'm going to fucking bed.
>>17865538
well thats convenient.
so far not a single moonlanding denier itt has explained his reasoning
>>17865501
My point is that it is NOT footage of a hovering landing module, as you claimed, ergo you are a lying shill.
>>17865560
What? Of course I believe we landed on the moon. The point of my post is that yours, and your reasoning, is one of the dumbest fucking things I've ever read on this board. Do you have any notion of how difficult an achievement that is?
>>17865560
And all you have done is post reaction gifs/images.
You're done. You trolled the thread. Now collect your paycheck and leave.
>>17865567
I never claimed it was a hovering landing module.
That's clearly the lunar module taking off, not hovering.
>>17865538
>I don't have the energy
You have the energy, you posted that long winded post.
What you don't have is a valid counterargument.
>>17865594
annnnd this right here is why people don't respond to shills. They just argue semantics endlessly and are intentionally vague until you argue so much the original point was lost. Classic technique. Tired and true.
>>17865605
>this is why people don't respond to 'shills'
They don't respond because they're wrong, and everybody knows it.
>>17865573
>it is dumb because i say so
>>17865575
>but all you have done is posting evidence
>>17865587
yeah cool
for the 500000th time: evidence for your retarded claims?
>>17865587
>The moon landing THAT WAS SHOWN ON TV WAS FAKE. Yes fake. The thing shown on TV in the 70's was a film.
"Americans Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on July 20, 1969"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11
1969 =/= 70's
>>17865594
>That's clearly the lunar module taking off, not hovering
LMAO!!!
Yeah, ""clearly""
Well, clearly you are a lying shill
>>17865659
You see how it keeps going up? That's taking off. If it were hovering it'd just be... hovering there.
By the way, you still haven't explained why you think it's fake.
Were you expecting a bunch of flames and smoke? In a vacuum?
>>17865672
>it is taking off not hovering, therefor it is real
LMAO!!!
keep dreaming about your spayce rokkits you shilling liar
>>17865671
They didn't have TV in the 40s and they didn't show the Normandy landings live. Those recordings are on film. The moon landings, however, were on video, which is different than film.
>>17865683
You said I said it was hovering, but I never said it was hovering.
Do we now agree the clip shows the lunar module taking off? Fine.
What part about it is fake, any why?
>>17865686
>They didn't have TV in the 40s
...
>>17865688
It is clearly a miniature shot.
Did you also thought 2001 a space odyssey was real.
LMAO, I bet you did, you toodle pip looser
>>17865688
the part where cartoon sparkles fly out and then the space craft wobbles into the sky stupidly.
Speaking of Kubrick. There is one thing that still bugging me from The Shining.
Where the hell is the Maze located at? I can't find that place from the aerial view scene at the beginning of movie.
>>17865686
>Those recordings are on film. The moon landings, however, were on video, which is different than film
You can go and troll /tv/ with this shit. Got a kek out of me
>>17865701
It is simply a continuity error. They filmed in 3 different "hotels"
>>17865671
why are you dragging normandy into this? the moon landing shown on tv was fake deal with it.
>>17865700
>cartoon sparkles
Those are pieces of foil the spacecraft is covered in. You'd really expect that to stay on during a rocket blast? Why?
>it wobbles
And why wouldn't it? It's an asymmetric multi-ton vehicle filled with equipment, rocks, and crew. Of course it's going to correct its trajectory and attitude. All rockets due this. That's just basic physics.
>>17865705
Do you think /tv/ understands the difference between video and film? Lots of 12 year olds these days who are only familiar with digital media. People back in the 1960s and 1970s would have known.
Do you understand the difference, anon? If the moon landing had been filmed by Stanley Kubrick in a studio, there would be all sorts of artifacts due to filming, even if they had transferred it to video.
>>17865721
it reminded me of poochy going back to his home planet.
>>17865729
But anon. I already called you out. Come on, I remember you from troll college, you cheeky little shit
>>17865721
>mistaking an obvious miniature shot for reality
LMAO!!!
>>17863344
Home of the retarded and delusional
>>17861442
Of course the Soviets believed it. That was the whole point.
>>17863303
What am I supposed to look at?
>>17865710
I'm pretty sure it was done on purpose to make the film even more puzzling. Some guy went through the film and came to the conclusion that the floorplan was impossible.
>>17866123
There is also a very obvious continuity error in this >>17860833 scene. In one cut the pattern of the floor changes its direction.
Humanity did land on the moon, but the footage wasn't able to be broadcasted because it contained footage of alien activity.
Yes, we went to the moon. No, the footage we saw was not of the actual landing. Why do people fight about whether or not we went to the moon or whether or not it was fake? All of those explanations are true.
>>17866176
but why keep aliens secret?
>>17866185
Control of authority on earth, and increased production of both physical goods and other, more "ephemeral" products. If the existence of aliens were revealed to the general public, suddenly people would stop focusing on local politics, Trump, the Brexit, etc. and be able to turn their ambitions further. Instead of needing permission to go to mars from Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Richard Branson they could get into contact with alien authorities to get there, and thus proliferate amongst the rest of the interstellar civilizations.
Earth is to the galaxy what /pol/ is to 4chan; a containment board. Humans are awful, but it's cruel to exterminate them.
>>17866207
nah man. Thats a shitty reason
Kubrick did film the Moon landing, but he was such a perfectionist that he demanded that they actually film it on the Moon.
>>17866214
You got a better explanation?
>>17866176
This guy gets it.
ITT:
>"What the fuck? Both explanations make sense. BUT WHICH IS THE REAL ONE? HOW DO I CHOOSE THE CORRECT PATH?"
>>17866219
they didnt meet aliens.
If they ever meet aliens they are going to jerk off so hard with it. It will be the greatest discovery of all time. How would you keep them secret anyway? Are they in on the conspiracy too?
>>17866241
Obviously they would be in on the conspiracy too. Humanity is a cash crop for these beings. It's in every religious book there is, the apocalypse; the big "harvest" at the end.
Why do you think that Death, in general human mythology carries a scythe?
>>17866248
because it symbolizes harvest which has many symbolic implications
>>17866254
...Yeah, I dunno. The idea of harvest is pretty clearly "things die for the profit of other things."
>>17865429
Who was holding the camera for that shot?
>>17866262
if you take it literally, yes.
It could also, among many other things, mean that death harvests your soul and brings it to god.
But yeah, for all we know we could indeed be some kind of farm or lab for our alien overlords. Has a nice lovecraftian touch to it
>>17866280
it was remote controled
>>17860833
Not fake. We've shot TONS of manned rockets into space since then, and there's PLENTY of proof of that. I've seen many go up with my own eyes down in Florida. Why spend billions on working rockets if your just gonna shoot a movie? Lol. There's no logic there.
I suppose it's possible the landing itself was faked, but I doubt it. That craft would have been lost for a very long time in the earths orbit if it didn't slingshot back around the moon
>>17866282
>if you take it literally, yes.
Occam's Razor, no? I thought skeptics were really into that.
>>17866286
1) Build rocket
2) Go to space
3) Fake moon landing, to save time / money
4) Because lunar modules with 3 stage propulsion systems are more complex
5) than just 2-stage rocket systems, and a movie set.
>>17866286
>"I've seen many go up with my own eyes down in Florida."
Rockets are sent up to reinforce the idea of space and the ever expanding universe. It is a perversion of the truth. Everything is always a little bit skewed. I highly implore you to do some research because there is some type of barrier preventing things from going too far up. Just please do more research, do not believe anything 100%.
>>17866290
What do you mean? The "grim reaper" is not real, anon. It is indeed the easiest assumption that a fictional character proves nothing about the real world.
Learn more about terms like oocams razor before you use them
I don't think the moon landing was a conspiracy, but fucking JFK....that shit has numerous flaws. That whole era of 50's, 60's, and 70's was overall creepy in terms of government.
>>17866337
>The "grim reaper" is not real, anon.
But the first season of "Dead Like Me" was cool. The second season pretty much instantly turned into crap however.
>>17863491
No one died in the challenger explosion.
>>17863491
How would you debunk "hurr that is clearly all fake! every evidence is just not real!!! LALALALA SHILL"
because that seems to be the gist of those
>>17863768
>THE CHANNEL IS LITERALLY "VideoFromSpace" AND HAS CONNECTIONS TO NASA
WOOOOOW, REALLY GOOD PROOF YOU GOT THERE, SHERLOCK
>>17864237
WTF IS GOING ON HERE?
>>17867368
Why does that mean it's not proof? Which of his arguments are you challenging?
>>17867370
CAPTAIN TURKEY
WHAT ELSE?
>>17867421
have you missed his follow up video in which he admits that it wasn't impossible to fake the moon landing?
>>17867494
Yes. Link it.
>>17867773
look it up yourself maggot
it's called for jarrah or something
landing is real but footage is faked
>there are people who -actually- believe livestreaming from the goddamn moon was possible back in 1960s in this thread
>>17867787
You mean this shit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3zhZqiSe5c
Because none of that debunks what Collins says. It's like listening to a flatearther "debunk" Niel Degrasse Tyson by just ranting about a bunch of irrelevant shit.
>>17867813
no, you idiot
collins made another video after being called out by jarrah. he officially changed his stance from "impossible to fake," which was the entire point of his origianl video, to "bloody unlikely"
>none of that debunks what collins says
even collins disagrees
oh, and jarrah made another video to collins reply, BTFO'ing him once again. but you're probably not going to watch all of that because obviously you don't care about truth
so, eat shit
>>17867810
Like I thought this was obvious
y'all check out the movie "Moonwalkers'. It takes a funny spin on this whole idea.
>>17867845
Oh, you mean this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-TelJ75pzP4
Where he completely destroys Jerrah White. And he doesn't admit it wasn't impossible to fake the moon landing, only one specific aspect of a specific point he made, only about Apollo 11.
>>17867899
loving evey laugh
>>17867928
Try watching it again. He's not saying what you think he's saying. He's smarter than you, and not above using sarcasm.
>>17867950
Sarcasm is a horrible thing to use when seriously responding to the argument of a conspiracy theory.
>>17867958
>seriously responding
>conspiracy theorist
Honestly humor is the only logical response.
It's not about convincing Jerrah White. He's irrelevant. He's going to keep on being a kook no matter how much evidence you show that guy.
It's about the rest of us.
You're not Jerrah White, are you?
>>17867950
you can't even add 1 and 1 together so i'm suprsided you think that guy is smart
>>17867983
I said theory, not theorist. You either address the idea or the person, and I give a fuck about the person. Try again, faggot, but this time with logic.
>>17867985
*surprised
eh, time for a nap
>>17867985
and now the shills resort to bratty child tactics. remember these are like adults paid to do this.
>>17867985
You think the moon landing was a hoax, so you're in no position to judge intelligence.
>>17868041
honestly you think people are paid to post disinformation on a message board for japanese cartoons
>>17867899
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE6OIPlQ3-8
Shortly after Jarrah made this Collins responded that he was done
>>17868049
>You think the moon landing was a hoax, so you're in no position to judge intelligence.
Haha just like people who thought CIA was funding and laundering money through modern expressionism haha dummies lol.
>>17867899
He makes a good point about a unified theory about the hoax.
People avoid giving details about how exactly they think things got faked. Please provide a complete hypothesis instead of just spouting "hurr this fake"
>>17867993
in this case the theory itself deserves humor
>>17869364
Humor is fine. Demeaning pretense-of-logical-upper-hand sarcasm isn't.
>>17868053
because you know /x/ has so much japanese cartoons on it
>>17865785
great counter-argument
>>17863491
>Taking all challengers.
Subtle, but amusing.
>>17864043
>>This conspiracy is really just a conspiracy!
This sums up /x/ so effectively.
>>17869381
He's got the logical upperhand because he has that luxury. He's right.
>>17869504
No, if he has logic it only matters if he shows it. You don't gain the upper hand by merely declaring it. That makes you a faggot, not a logician.
>>17865429
>footage of them leaving the moons surface
HOLD THE FUCK UP!
How did they bring back the video tape if they launched without it?
Who the hell did they leave behind to film them leaving and angle the camera of the ship going up????
>>17869898
James Keating was the third man on the moon, a true patriot who valiantly sacrificed his life to take the footage to complete the conspiracy. It was then shot back to Earth via a much smaller one-off module that performed re-entry unaided, flew through the window of the Oval Office and landed on President Nixon's desk.
>>17869515
If some people continue to ignore evidence and fail to follow basic logical conclusions one has the right to stop engaging in serious discussion and start to openly mock them
>>17869898
>footage of them leaving the moons surface
>HOLD THE FUCK UP!
>How did they bring back the video tape if they launched without it?
Umm, beamed it back to Earth like they did with the live images of them walking on moon.
>Who the hell did they leave behind to film them leaving and angle the camera of the ship going up????
If they can fly to the moon figuring out how to set up a camera to do that would be trivial.
>>17861499
People try to use this excuse for the moon landing being real but I've never seen an image showing the flag from Earth.
>>17860833
To be able to take a photo like this you would have to be a very good photographer. Since we haven't been to the moon, the lighting conditions were unpredictable. Also there were no viewfinders on their cameras so how could they take perfect shots like this? Remember their cameras were mounted on their chest. Camera positioning was crucial. Look at where it says "united states". Google for more images. There are too many details that you just can't ignore.
>>17871893
>lighting conditions were unpredictable
if the effects of atmosphere on light are understood and the atmosphere of the moon is measured then I don't see why you think it would be any less predictable than any other scientific measurement.
>no viewfinders
I've seen this explained - the pictures were cropped to make them level. The full picture is at an angle and takes in more of the surroundings.
>>17871893
>lighting conditions are unpredictable.
Anon, it's the moon. There is no atmosphere. There are no clouds. There is no fog, haze, or smog. One single day there lasts 30 some earth days.
The lighting on the moon is 100% predictable. At any given location, the lighting conditions can be predicted with confidence thousands of years in the future.
>>17871893
>To be able to take a photo like this you would have to be a very good photographer
Please look through these
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums/with/72157659052908231
Maybe 80% of those photographs are badly framed. They made so many that some of them happened to be quite decent
>>17861442
>>17861499
>>17871893
>all opinions
>>17872547
That's not a subject of opinion, anon.
The claim that the lighting on the moon is unpredictable is a false statement.
>>17872528
>i dont know shit about spacefare
>>17872528
Except for the gold foil, I don't see anything in the picture on that list. Also I don't remember any gold foil for sale last time I ran to Home Depot.
>>17861528
maybe you dont understand what hes saying. many governments are themselves governed by international oversight and groups like the trilateral commission, bilderberg, and others. Perhaps all government is an international system rigged against the people. russians/americans. two sides of the same government .
