[–] Frygar 4 points 14 points (+18|-4) ago  (edited ago)

The information I've seen leads me to this conclusion:

  • We're definitely on the moon, as is now India and China. And by "on" - I mean, presently, now.

  • The Cold War ended and many countries shipped their fissile materials to new endeavors/platforms in deep space, in orbit, and on the dark side of the moon

[Edit: Except notably Israel. They put theirs back into new weapons, the Samson Option, and Submarines]

  • The moon landing was partially staged. We did land, however we did NOT send high-res images and video around the world where everyone including Russia could see exactly how the lander worked. It was a CON to hide how we did it

  • Just everything else the American Government has done since the 1960's, even the Government itself has lied inter-agency [and even intra-agency] to such a degree that even within the Government there isn't a consensus of what the truth is from that period.

[–] JayDrifts [S] 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

A much more believable theory.

[–] middle_path 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

How does Kubric play into this?

[–] BB-3 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It may be slow, but the moon has a day/night cycle. The "dark side of the moon" is about as specific as saying the "dark side of earth"

[–] facetumor 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

I think he meant the far side. Either way, this comment is abolute horseshit and anyone who believes it hasn't done much research.

[–] UlyssesEMcGill 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Uhhhhh, no

[–] elitch2 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

Van Allen Belts https://hooktube.com/watch?v=lrxpqn3Gb20

"Moon footage" at double speed https://hooktube.com/watch?v=G5Sllu1aFsQ

Bubbles during space walks? https://hooktube.com/watch?v=8PB7AwZzaOo

Rockets in a vacuum? How the fuck does that work? http://fakeologist.com/blog/2015/01/28/why-rockets-dont-work-in-a-vacuum/

So much more.

[–] JayDrifts [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Reading up on the Van Allen deal before I comment

What is the moon video at double speed suppose to prove?

Bubbles in space.... I'm not a science nerd but here is my explanation. We use oxygen to breathe so life support (I would assume) holds compressed oxygen right? So I assume there is condensation. Plus rapid temp changes when the airlock is depressurized I would think would instantly cause a reaction. As for the EVA suits, I would think condensation would play a role here as well somehow or latched on from the airlock opening like static makes things stick to you but I don't know what the temps are or enough about the environment there so I'm shooting in the dark.

Rockets in space.. Hmm... Most of the the things I see used have some type of compressed gas to move around.

My problem is the lack of science explanation in these videos, 100% of the time its just a normal dude trying to explain the conspiracy with broken logic.

Like the light going in and out on the EVA walk, that is more than likely a exposure or aperture deal with the camera.

Good links tho, I still call bullshit but I like to read about it non the less.

[–] roznak 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The radiation belt is a none-issue. It is a belt, not a sphere. This means that you can bypass the belt by going OVER it.

[–] elitch2 5 points -2 points (+3|-5) ago 

There is so much more. The sheer preponderance of evidence is astounding. Those were just quick links.

Moon video at 2x looks like a couple dudes walking normally.

Any debris, bubbles, whatever should be in the exact same orbit as everything else, not shooting off in any direction. The airlocks are fully decompressed well before the outer door would open. Otherwise you would see a lot more "astronauts" flung out into space.

Like I said, there is a lot more. There is zero chance that the moon landings happened. The Van Allen belts alone would have fried them. Fried them alive in their little aluminium can.

[–] mrnicegoy 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I think the more important question is if the moon landing did happen, why haven't we been back? Surely a moon base, with its gravity and pretty much infinite storage space would be way more feasible than a tin can in space zipping around the earth at 17,000 mph, in danger of radiation and debris etc? Fun thing to think about: the moon rotation as it orbits the earth is absolutely perfect, which is why we never see the dark/far side of the moon. Never deviates. No other moon does this.

[–] roznak 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

  1. Orbital speed 7.6 km/s, going to the moon 11 km/s. Very expensive to get to the Moon. Also don't forget that you need fuel to slow down once near the moon.
  2. 3 days to get there, 3 days to get back.
  3. Harder to return to the safety of Earth.
  4. 14 days of scorching heat and 14 days of the coldest place in the universe. Solar panels won't help neither batteries.
  5. Orbiting the Moon is harder than Earth. Sun-Earth will pull you out of orbit. It takes more fuel to get a stable orbit at the moon.
  6. Moon-dust. It is like sand paper, it destroys your equipment.

Interestingly, the moon actually shields you from cosmic rays. Shielding from solar burst could be by hiding in caves or in orbit by pointing your big ass fuel tanks and heat shield toward the Sun.

[–] mrnicegoy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

huh wow thankyou for writing that out, interesting, I would have thought it was a no-brainer but I guess not!

[–] TheBuddha 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Forget it, Jake. They're Illinois Nazis.

[–] JayDrifts [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I have said this many times, one of the reasons I like reading about the hoaxes.

[–] TheBuddha 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The truth is, there's not a lot of reasons to go back to the moon. It's not a good stepping stone to go to Mars. There's no efficient way to bring back the He. It's not survivable without great expense. There's not much to study. It's just a dick waving contest, and this is from me saying this. I love space and space exploration. We can put probes on it and be just fine. In fact, China is working on one.

Again, we have rocks that wouldn't have formed in the earth's formation and atmosphere. We have a crystal that we bounce a laser off. Japan recently sent an orbiter and took pictures of the shit we left behind. Triangulation of radio signals gives directionality and time. The USSR would have blown our lies out of the water, as would any other nation.

We went to the moon, and came back, multiple times.

[–] Zinnsee 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

[–] 00ellis 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

@JayDrifts read "Wagging the Moondoggie" that's the one that started me on this rabbit hole.

The other questions that's started the moon landing hoax were three simple questions.

How long does it take the space shuttle from launch until dock with the ISS? How long did it take from launch to landing on the moon with 1960's technology? The answer for both questions is 3 days...kinda weird no that it takes longer to dock with the ISS than to land on the moon?

Why in the middle of a propaganda Cold War space race would the Soviet Union all of a sudden throw its hands up and give up on trying to land on the moon? The Soviets were ahead technologically in every single aspect of the space race, why just give up on such an endevour? It makes zero sense.

[–] JayDrifts [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Looking into it now..

[–] JayDrifts [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'm liking this Moondoggie..

[–] 00ellis 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's a fun read and asks fundamental common sense questions that don't seem to be answered by the 'elites'

[–] birds_sing 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Change my mind.

Before I begin, I'm not saying that it was faked. Nor am I saying it was real. I personally choose to live my life as if it did happen. But I take it on pure blind gullible faith that it did. I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that it did actually happen. You probably haven't either - Let me explain.

Imagine you're at my home. I tell you the first car I ever owned was blue. I then ask you to tell me the color of the first car I owned. You of course answer blue. I ask why you gave me that answer and it was because I just told you it was blue. But I'm capable of lying. You're taking it on faith that I'm telling the truth. You have no evidence, only what you've taken on faith.

I show you a picture of a younger me standing beside a blue car and tell you here is evidence. But that could be a friend's car, or a sibling's car. I go into a bedroom and grab an old wallet. In it is an old vehicle registration, with my name on it, for a blue car. But that's just a piece of paper with some stuff printed on it. I can print anything on a piece of paper.

Now it would be very unlikely that I anticipated this conversation and printed out a fake registration or photoshopped pictures of me with a blue car. And there's nothing to gain from lying about the color of a car. So it'd be very unlikely that I'm lying. But unlikely doesn't mean false. And likely doesn't mean true. I haven't shown you any actual evidence, only things that you have to take on faith.

I challenge you to do this - Give me one (only one) piece of evidence that the moon landing happened. But it has to be evidence and not something that is taken on faith. Also, likely does not mean true and unlikely does not mean false. Photos and videos can be manipulated and faked. People are capable of lying. Likely and unlikely don't mean true or false. Also, just because the majority of people believe something, that doesn't make it true.

Some may say that this is a moving the goalposts argument, but it isn't. It's that we are all gullible and take things on faith. Then we say that they're facts when they aren't facts and are only things that we've taken on faith.

You can not say that you know the moon landing happened. You can't. So stop saying that you know it happened. You can only say that you take it on blind faith that it did. (Or prove me wrong by giving me one piece of evidence that can be proven as true without having to to take anything on faith.)

I think you are all as fucking stupid as the flat Earth people.

I can tell someone that the first car I owned was blue. I can tell someone else it was black. It doesn't matter which one is right and which one is wrong. Both people are gullible and stupid if they believe they know the right color. Same with the moon landing. The people who know it happened are just as gullible and stupid as the ones who know it didn't. The truth is that neither know if it did or didn't happen. Both are gullible for taking it on faith that it did or didn't happen, and are too stupid to realize that they're taking it on faith. Again, it doesn't matter which one is right and which one is wrong.

[–] JayDrifts [S] 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

Good point. Well said.

[–] roznak 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I think they are trying to get a foothold into Voat. If you attract enough mental retards to your channel then they outnumber the sane people.

If the people of Voat don't push back, then they will infect Voat just like SJW's do.

[–] TheBuddha 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Not only have we been to the moon, we've left our trash there. Orbiters from other countries have sent back images of this. On top of that, we left a crystal there that we bounce a laser off to measure the speed the moon moves away from the earth. There's no way we could fake going to the moon without the USSR calling bullshit.

[–] WhoaMan 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

To be fair we allegedly had the Tiananmen square massacre faked (on our news part) according to rt and wikileaks

[–] TheBuddha 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I do not see any evidence of fakery?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

That and we don't have radar and telescopes covering Asia with such strong signatures in a vast and empty place.

I have personally held moon rocks, multiples. I know some of the engineers involved and studied under one person who worked on the orbital mechanics. I also know the composition of the moon rock is unlike anything we have on earth. I've got even more, but that pretty well covers it. Pretty much every day, people go out and bounce a laser off a crystal we put there. They time the transit. It's moving away at about 6 cm per year.

[–] dontmindthemess 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

I particularly like the panning shot of the lander taking off from the moon. Did they leave someone behind?

[–] Morbo 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Remotely operated camera with pan/tilt mount. There's a good video about the guy who operated it having to work around the propagation delay. He would practice sending the commands until he was able to get a good smooth video of the launch on the last mission. Many earlier videos were off by a lot until he got the timing down with the transmission delays.

[–] dontmindthemess 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Um, ok. You’re right. Im convinced by your argument. I just didn’t think they could pan so perfectly by remote from, idk, several hundred yard away and keep it in frame at the exact panning speed that a craft was leaving the surface of the moon, which they didn’t know the pull of gravity that the craft would be fighting against, since it was the first time they were there. I can give the engineers credits for the math they did to pull all this off, but how do they know what the gravity of the moon was pulling on the lander as it left the surface of the moon, with a variable load of moon rock aboard. They don’t know the weight of the rocks they loaded on the exit craft, so how would they know how to time the panning speed of the camera? They don’t know the density or weight of the rocks, so how do they know the math to figure the speed of the escape velocity of the amount of rocks they were bringing back?

[–] roznak 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The panning shot is cause by a 3 second delay between the operator see the image (1.5 seconds) and 1.5 seconds to send the joystick command. Imagine that you have a shooter game that lags 3 seconds between what you seen and when it actually reacts.

load more comments ▼ (16 remaining)