🗑️ 🧵 Here's how NASA can prove the moon landing
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 11:55:57 UTC No. 16450355
>They set up multiple live streams with multiple cameras
>The cameras must last long enough and be high quality
>They film astronauts before entering the ship, like when they put their suits on
>The cameras sometimes film each other to prove they're real
>These cameras are meant to film the entire trip, from both before they enter the ship and up until they get near the American flag in the moon
>If one camera stops working, that's what the other cameras are for
>There's additional cameras that will not be in the trip: They're meant to record the astronauts (And their cameras) and some stay on Earth to record the ship leaving
TLDR: They plan a trip with multiple cameras where astronauts travel to the moon landing where it all started just to prove it's real.
It's just a matter of budget and having the best assets available.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 12:50:17 UTC No. 16450427
They have already proven the moon landing by placing a mirror disk on the surface for use in laser measurements. You could verify this yourself with the right instruments.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 13:38:07 UTC No. 16450517
>>16450427
Source?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 19:11:47 UTC No. 16451098
>>16450355
They don't need to prove it. Why would they care if a bunch of schizo nobodies don't believe.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 19:20:32 UTC No. 16451105
>>16450355
Can't we just classify everyone who's in denial of the moon landing as a clinical retard?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 19:24:31 UTC No. 16451110
>>16450517
Not just NASA doing it by hand, but the Soviets and even the pajeets remotely put reflectors on the moon for you to use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 19:37:00 UTC No. 16451115
>>16450427
>>16451110
maybe you should look up how long ago they first detected return photons from a laser aimed at the moon.
hint: it happened years before they claimed to have put any mirrors up there. retroreflectors are not required for this experiment to work.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 19:53:09 UTC No. 16451134
The reality is that no one really cares who a loser like you believes to be true. No one is going to expend much effort on explaining things to someone of such limited intelligence and with your insecurities.
>insult fallacy!
Doesn't matter. You're still not going to get what you want beyond a couple of (you)s on a Tanzanian butter churning board.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:03:28 UTC No. 16451144
>>16451134
Except trannies are only 0.5% of the population
So there are 12x as many moon landing deniers are troons
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 20:10:39 UTC No. 16451150
>>16451144
What percentage of trannies believe the Moon landing was a hoax? Curious if it is greater or less than the general population.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 11:15:44 UTC No. 16451974
>>16451134
The videos were absolutely staged.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:01:08 UTC No. 16452000
>>16450355
moonhoax faggots will just call the footage fake and carry on as usual. they dont feel the need to prove anything is fake - they just claim it. they are such dumb niggers.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:02:32 UTC No. 16452003
>>16451115
and if you read what the guys say about it you'd know that the retroreflectors give a far superior return compared to the bare lunar surface. as in 100x better.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:34:04 UTC No. 16452030
>>16452003
sauce
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 12:51:27 UTC No. 16452057
>>16452030
https://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/ap
page 3 center column
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:30:52 UTC No. 16452112
>>16452057
This is just the same characterization of the data. Where is the actual data?
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 13:39:16 UTC No. 16452137
>>16452112
there are several tables later on in that paper and a healthy references section at the end. but i do wonder if seeing the data would really make any difference to a moonhoaxie, who will just call it fake anyway.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 15:09:40 UTC No. 16452257
>>16452137
None of those tables have anything demonstrating the claim. Given that you couldn't immediately see that at first glance, then yeah, in that case, you should be very concerned that the data you give is fake as you have no ability to inspect it.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 15:35:08 UTC No. 16452288
Trying to convince retards is useluss.
You're also retarded, and like tranime.
No good /sci/ thread has ever been opened with tranime, and no tranime op has ever been a good thread.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 15:47:11 UTC No. 16452309
>>16452257
have you looked for any data or are you assuming this one paper is the sum total of what is available on the subject?
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 16:54:18 UTC No. 16452397
primary "evidence" that Apollo was fake:
>the lunar lander isn't areodynamic (usually phrased as something along the lines of "cardboard and tinfoil")
>we haven't done it again
>moon mountains look different than earth mountains (usually phrased as something along the lines of "spotlight")
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 17:02:44 UTC No. 16452409
>>16452309
I asked for sauce and this is what the moontard gave me.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 17:10:41 UTC No. 16452418
>>16452409
i gave you that paper as support for when i said that returns from retroreflectors was waay stronger than from the lunar surface itself. If you want data from the ranging runs you can go look for yourself, which i highly doubt you will.
>>16452397
>areodynamic
why would it need to be?
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 17:35:34 UTC No. 16452446
>>16452257
https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/f
im sure this wont be acceptable to you either since its all fake and gay isn't it.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 17:49:37 UTC No. 16452475
>>16450355
>24/7/365.2425 camera feed
>female anime astronauts
Someone just wants to watch girls poop in zero gravity. This was never about the Moon.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:05:07 UTC No. 16452507
>>16452257
>very concerned that the data you give is fake as you have no ability to inspect it.
http://polac.obspm.fr/llrdatae.html
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:10:04 UTC No. 16452513
>>16452418
>returns from retroreflectors was waay stronger than from the lunar surface itself
the lunar surface is not homogeneous. some locations have significantly more reflectivity than others. they knew this in 1964 and they had years to do detailed surveys and find locations which had much higher reflectivity than elsewhere. all before any moon landing.
BUT - you know what they could have done to have ironclad PROOF they went to the moon? Months before the mission tell everyone exactly where the retroreflectors are going to be placed so that a multitude of observatories with LLR setups can take before and after measurements OF THE SAME LOCATION. Then no one has to trust without being able to verify.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:18:23 UTC No. 16452520
>>16452257
http://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/apo
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:32:13 UTC No. 16452544
>>16452513
read up on how the ranging operation is carried out. they scan the general area of the retroreflector and then see a large and very obvious spike of returns when they hit it. theres nothing else like it, its unmistakable.
But anyway, the presence of the reflectors doesn't PROVE guy walked on the moon and they should not really be offered as such, since the russians placed their using a remote rover.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 18:40:52 UTC No. 16452557
>>16452544
>they scan the general area of the retroreflector and then see a large and very obvious spike of returns when they hit it.
I don't think you understand the graphs you're looking at. the large spikes are just the cummulative results of thousands of laser pulses showing photons detected at the exact time it should take for a roundtrip, so you know these are the reflected photons that made it back to the observatory (as opposed to background noise).
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 19:08:02 UTC No. 16452579
>>16452507
Why don't the dat files contain header data?
Why is this amalgamation needed. Where is the original LLR data?
>The link budget is unbelievably low; according to Samain et al., (1998), among the 1018 emitted photon/pulse (in the green wave-length), only 0.01 are eventually detected back on Earth, which represents an overall signal loss at the level of 1020. At a transmiting rate of 10 pulse/sec, only 0.1 to 1 photon are detected per second, and hence, several tens of minutes are needed to construct a normal point with an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio.
Why does everything in science turn out to be fake and gay?
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 19:11:30 UTC No. 16452583
>>16450355
NASA is really bad at video media for some reason. SpaceX has different camera angles going constantly but even when NASA flies SpaceX they don't use them and cut to a black woman talking. HLS probably will have a setup like you describe, but NASA won't use it.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 20:45:25 UTC No. 16452747
>>16452557
i wasnt meaning to say that those graphs were showing the return spike i mentioned, sorry for the confusion. i was referring to a description of the process written by a guy who ran the software. He said it worked as i explained it, and they know when they are hitting the reflector because they see a big spike in returns.
>>16452579
>Why don't the dat files contain header data?
>Why is this amalgamation needed. Where is the original LLR data?
ah ok so now you're being unreasonably demanding as a way to avoid accepting the information. What difference would it make to you if you could see what you're asking about?
>Why does everything in science turn out to be fake and gay?
how is it fake and gay? they know exactly what the returning photon is because its a very precise wavelength.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 21:14:20 UTC No. 16452787
>>16452747
You just believe everything you read on a website?
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 21:17:47 UTC No. 16452791
>>16452787
why should i doubt it? where is there any sign of fraud? nobody says its fake and theres no reason to think it has to be faked.
outside of working in that field personally thats about the best we can know about anything really.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 22:06:04 UTC No. 16452870
>>16452791
Why should you doubt what you read on a website? Taking this non-rhetorically, the primary reason is going to be contradiction. The internet is going to tell you many things that are in disagreement and you can't believe them all.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 22:12:17 UTC No. 16452879
>>16452870
wheres the contradiction with LLR though? can you be specific? whats the problem?
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 22:36:56 UTC No. 16452893
>>16452879
You are telling me there are no websites that claim the moon landing is fake? But you just believe no reason for anyone to lie on the internet right? So they are just both true?
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 23:34:21 UTC No. 16452942
>>16450355
Here's how NASA can prove the Moon landing: Kill all retarded niggers like you.
>>16452000
This.
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 02:39:24 UTC No. 16453141
>>16452397
>>we haven't done it again
the occam's razor of the moon landing
sciencefags STILL can't refute this, even decades after the supposed "moon landing"
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 05:13:47 UTC No. 16453215
>>16453141
Corruption and grift. There you go I explained it for you.
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 05:50:46 UTC No. 16453233
>>16452288
I see a lack of intelligent thought
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 12:32:37 UTC No. 16453452
>>16452893
LLR has nothing to do with if the moonlandings happened or not. But the real issue here is that you yourself seem unable to sift truth from fiction which is why your first thought here >>16452870 was that of 'contradiction'. You'd find that once you know something about the subject at hand, the claims of is being fake show themselves to be ignorant in the extreme.
That is absolutely the case with all the tired claims for why the moonlandings were faked. The claimants as a rule dont know what the hell they are talking about...much as you are proving when it comes to why LLR is fake.
>>16453141
its a stupid point though. there hasn't been a supersonic passenger aircraft for over 20 years so i suppose, following your pattern of thought and reasoning, if it can be referred to as such, means concorde was fake too.
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 12:39:59 UTC No. 16453453
>>16453452
>the reflectors installed or not installed on the moon by the teams that landed on the moon are not related to the moon landings being faked
The söy has filtered you. All I am seeing is a screeching dogmatic cult believer trying to shout down people who are looking for information. I thought the real sciences were infested with these cheap cummie twinks, but here we are.
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 12:46:21 UTC No. 16453456
>>16451134
I wonder when the flat earth will fully die
When space trip vacation become cheap enough for upper middle class? When there are permanent space bases? When commercial exploitation of space begins and it's not uncommon to personally know someone working there? When there is space infrastructure visible with a naked eye?
>>16453141
We haven't drilled another Kola superdeep, was it fake too?
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 13:12:00 UTC No. 16453479
>>16453453
you know the russians placed a couple retroreflectors using unmanned rovers....so yeah, manned landings and LLR dont really connect at all.
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 14:07:47 UTC No. 16453538
>>16453479
I was under the impression those were quickly covered in dust and no longer work.
Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 15:50:34 UTC No. 16453637
>>16453538
from what i read they are still very effective. it was the case that nobody could find them for several years because the USSR wasn't too clear on where they put them lol.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 22:07:27 UTC No. 16455322
>erm you can't prove anything
there is plenty of proof if you open your eyes and stop coping and excusing every mistake nasa makes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJq
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVI
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 22:09:17 UTC No. 16455327
>>16451150
thankfully moon landing deniers are mostly intelligent white men
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 22:31:23 UTC No. 16455347
>>16455327
they are lying scheming retards who know nothing
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 22:37:36 UTC No. 16455352
>>16455347
>>16455322
they know more than you I'm afraid
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 22:43:19 UTC No. 16455357
>>16455352
never happened so far. go back to studying American Moon and try again later.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 22:44:25 UTC No. 16455358
>>16455357
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVI
don't you see this?
It's proof they fake it.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 22:52:57 UTC No. 16455367
>>16455358
looks nothing like filming done under water. you're just seeing what you want to see and ignoring whatever you dont.
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 22:53:59 UTC No. 16455368
>>16455367
I see what I see
you don't see anything
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 22:57:01 UTC No. 16455370
>>16455368
i see just another space-is-fake faggot who wants to feel special and relies on youtube videos for his 'research'
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 23:03:17 UTC No. 16455371
>>16455370
You're the special one
and by special I mean retarded
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 13:06:15 UTC No. 16455812
total moonhoaxie death
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 14:38:35 UTC No. 16455854
>>16450355
european scientist tried to prove it by using the largest telescope
read this article
https://archive.is/unZA
they tried and failed
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:05:49 UTC No. 16455870
>>16455854
lots of probes have taken pictures just fine.
>wawaah all faaaakkke!!!1
>wants you to think he wouldn't call telescope photos fake too
moonhoaxies are dishonest assholes
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:11:38 UTC No. 16455878
>>16455870
you are a dishonest asshole who can't something directly without moving goalposts
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:13:39 UTC No. 16455879
>>16455878
>can't something
address*
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:31:29 UTC No. 16455899
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:41:45 UTC No. 16455916
>>16450355
>set up multiple live streams with multiple cameras
>implying that footage can't be falsified with unlimited budget
Anyway, White man reached the moon in 1969. He was first. Enjoy your sloppy seconds - if you ever get there.
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 16:08:36 UTC No. 16455949
>>16455878
didnt move a thing. But, if you were honest (and we both know you are not), you'd have to admit that even if that telescope (not designed for close bright targets btw) had shown evidence of the landing sites, you would just dismiss those images as fake, as you do with everything else.
thats true isnt it? if not, why would you accept those images while rejecting all others?
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 19:23:39 UTC No. 16456131
>>16455949
i would accept it because i could potentially go there and see it for myself
>the telescope was not designed for close bright targets
what utter cope
it's a telescope. why do you think they attempted to use it to look at the landing sites?
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 19:33:20 UTC No. 16456139
>>16456131
> i could potentially go there and see it for myself
but how many will? its the quality of the evidence which is important, and the landings meet every criteria.
>it's a telescope.
its an interferometer. you dont look through an eyepiece and see things. read into how they work and the reasons for why its no good for looking at the moon.
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 19:37:37 UTC No. 16456147
>>16456139
>but how many will?
you should definitely go there and see the empty landing sites for yourself
>its an interferometer
i know it's an interferometer and they have not given a reason why it's not possible to use it to look at the moon
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 23:22:48 UTC No. 16456387
>>16456147
and moonhoax fags dont give any reasons for anything being fake either, but im sure you lap that all up. "looks fake to me" seems be the gold standard.
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 23:47:13 UTC No. 16456403
>>16456387
>ok, i'm full of shit but whatabout...
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:12:11 UTC No. 16456846
>>16456403
no, its just that no matter moonhoaxies will never accept any evidence. you know that, i know that, because this isn;t about evidence at all - its about your feefees.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:13:14 UTC No. 16456847
>>16456147
>you should definitely go there and see the empty landing sites for yourself
at least 3 different probes have taken photos of the sites, but of course for you thats all fake by definition. see - no evidence will do for you on this subject.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:15:11 UTC No. 16456851
>>16450355
>NASA spends billions doing all this
>All the hoax schizos just cry CGI anyway
There’s no point in bending over backwards to persuade lunatics of reality.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:31:14 UTC No. 16456860
>>16456851
I admire the world you sane people built. Your workmanship is impeccable. How's your firework 'starship' going at getting us to barren Mars?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:36:43 UTC No. 16456861
>>16456851
Lunatics? You 'sane' people think something along the lines of, destroy the world, try populate another planet. Your minds are rarely still and you're sloppy and injust. There's no more lunatic than the people you ascribe sanity to.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:37:45 UTC No. 16456863
>>16456851
Faggit.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:39:06 UTC No. 16456865
>>16456860
EDS is a very sad thing to see
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:45:42 UTC No. 16456868
>>16456847
>go to chile
>use their very large telescope interferometer
>look at the landing sites
>????
>profit!
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:50:23 UTC No. 16456874
>>16456868
go read up on how those things work dummy.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:00:30 UTC No. 16456879
>>16456868
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com
>Radio astronomers have had it easier. The long radio wavelengths mean data from separated dishes can be recorded, digitized, time-stamped by an atomic clock, and combined later for analysis. But optical interferometry is far trickier: The short wavelengths of visible light, running at terahertz frequencies, cannot yet be digitized by any electrical system. So the light must be merged in real time, with nanometer precision.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:11:25 UTC No. 16456885
>>16456874
>>16456879
oh, they just didn't know it wouldn't work on the lunar surface when they boldly announced they would use it to look at the landing sites to btfo moon landing deniers
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:18:05 UTC No. 16456894
>>16456885
they were saying that its maximum resolution could just have resolved something of that size. Shock horror, an excited scientist made a claim that turned out not to be true, can you believe it!!?!?
i thought moonhoax and flat earth fags didn't 'believe the science' anyway lol
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:21:41 UTC No. 16456898
>>16456894
well yes, the angular resolution of the VLT-I is 0.001 arc seconds and to see an object the size of the lunar lander on the moon a resolution of 0.002 arc seconds is enough
they haven't given any reason why it didn't work
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:31:53 UTC No. 16456903
>>16456898
you're ignoring the reasons why its very very difficult to make work, plus the fact that sure, the telescope technically has that resolution (not sure if its ever been reached under any circumstances by the way) but actually attaining it with atmospheric effects is another thing altogether. The more you might learn about how this stuff works the less susceptible to stupid moonhoax claims like this you'll be
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:43:49 UTC No. 16456915
>>16456903
>Techniques such as adaptive optics help us remove the blurring effects of the Earth's atmosphere. The adaptive optics system detects the distortion introduced by the atmosphere in real time and uses this information to act on a deformable mirror hundreds of times per second in order to compensate for the atmosphere. The final result is a corrected image almost as sharp as those we get from telescopes in space.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:21:58 UTC No. 16456954
>>16456915
sure, and that works well for normal optical telescopes. But when you want to merge the information from a bunch of telescopes its exponentially more difficult, as the article i posted above mentions >>16456879.
Look i get it; no moonhoaxie is going to bother trying to understand this because they dont care. They latched on the comments of one guy who was saying that the system might be able to achieve sufficient resolution and never stopped to understand that this is the maximum theoretical capability of it, subject to limitations of technology and conditions. These limitations have been discussed, but of course thats not good enough.
And anyway, even if it had produced magnificent images of the LM, rover etc, or perhaps just some blurred blobs (most likely), it would simply have been written of as fake, CGI, etc etc, not least because images produced using interforemetry produces highly computer manipulated images, and not the simple photographs hoaxies claim to want, even though they also dismiss those as fake when shown.
this is just another dishonest run around by cultists for whom nothing can ever change their mind, even though they can never say why anything in particular is fake.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:36:50 UTC No. 16456975
>>16456954
>and never stopped to understand that this is the maximum theoretical capability of it
the 1 milli arc second resolution has been proven in practice
your only approach to defend your hoax is by using rhetoric rather than evidence
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:39:34 UTC No. 16456978
>>16456975
>the 1 milli arc second resolution has been proven in practice
where? under what circumstances, and why is trying to do the same on a huge brightly lit object not the same?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:42:18 UTC No. 16456981
>>16456131
>i could potentially go there and see it for myself
You could go see lunar laser ranging performed in person, and you could go see moon rack sample being worked on in person, but most moonhoaxies deny both of these things as being real. And, even you did go and watch it carried in in front of you, you could still just turn around and say 'well, it could still be faked' because you wouldn't understand enough to know whats going on anyway.
Thats what it all comes down to.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:58:36 UTC No. 16457025
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 15:07:45 UTC No. 16457042
>>16457025
you're hopeless in your citation practice
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 15:18:39 UTC No. 16457063
>>16457025
And thats using AMBER which images in near infra red. Let's even say they could get the max resolution while looking at the moon...what do you think such an image would show? What you'd get would be a couple different color pixels because the LM would be a slightly different temp to the general lunar surface around it. And you know what a moonhoaxie would say when looking at those couple pixels...
"CEEGEEYE!!!!!1"
just like you would. no doubt about it. Why would you accept it over everything else?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 16:12:22 UTC No. 16457131
>>16457063
Even with infrared it would be visible, but they could not deliver anything. Regardless of what moon landing realists would say about the images. They couldn’t provide anything. Without giving reasons why.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 16:12:45 UTC No. 16457132
>>16450355
Won't matter. Moon truthers will call it fake no matter what.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 16:22:16 UTC No. 16457137
>>16457131
and what do you think it would show on the image? something like i described >>16457063
>without giving reasons why
you're rejecting the reasons because you already 'know' that they looked but couldn't find any evidence and then wanted to cover it up. Thats what you 'know' isn't it?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 16:32:48 UTC No. 16457146
>>16455896
So lets imagine that they could get those near-infra red images of the apollo 11 landing site. It would look pretty like this >>16455896
i suppose - the LM just a couple pixels of a different color representing its slightly different temperature compared to the surface around it.
Why would that VLT image, itself a product of a great deal of computer manipulation and processing, be more acceptable and convincing than the images taken by several different lunar orbiters?
Remember, its not as if you can go to the VLT and just look down the eyepiece of a telescope and see this stuff. It will always be something you're looking at on a screen. How could you tell if they were faking it? It's only a couple pixels.....why would you believe it?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 17:50:15 UTC No. 16457227
>>16457042
https://archive.is/UFJo
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 19:12:37 UTC No. 16457302
>>16457227
thanks. do keep in mind that this in near infra red, not visual light, and when using the thing on something 300M LY away. One feature of this kind of system is that they have a minimum area on which they can 'focus' the separate telescope on. it seems that the 'beams' of this telescope must be almost exactly parallel, so the more distant the object the better it is. This could be one of the reasons why it couldnt be used to image such a small area on the moon.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 19:13:52 UTC No. 16457305
>>16457146
>Why would that VLT image, itself a product of a great deal of computer manipulation and processing, be more acceptable and convincing than the images taken by several different lunar orbiters?
the point is that it couldn't produce such a picture. they announced it. they tried it. they looked at the landing sites. and they said it's not possible to use it for that purpose. without saying why.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 19:15:28 UTC No. 16457306
>>16457302
you are just using rhetoric not evidence
bla bla bla
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 20:25:43 UTC No. 16457356
>>16457305
why wont you answer the question though?
>>16457306
im describing some of the stuff ive been reading about the way this thing works.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 20:32:09 UTC No. 16457363
>>16457356
it is irrelevant if i would accept it or not, since they failed to produce what they promised. this is what you somehow don't comprehend.
and i would accept it since i could go there myself and use the telescopes. and i would suggest that you do just that and look at the empty landing sites yourself
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:00:40 UTC No. 16457384
>>16457363
>promised.
really? i never read them promising anything.
> i could go there myself and use the telescopes.
no, you could not because you've no idea how it works. you'd be watching other people operate it. why would you trust a few pixels they could make appear on a screen?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:04:57 UTC No. 16457388
>>16457384
why wouldn’t you trust it? go and see for yourself
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:13:40 UTC No. 16457399
>>16457388
i trust the several different probes whic photographed the landing sites, and ive never seen any reason at all to not trust the 16000 super HD photos, many hours of 16mm video footagem the moonrock samples worked on by thousands of people all over the world etc.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:20:12 UTC No. 16457406
>>16457399
why not the earth based telescope that you can visit yourself?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:50:25 UTC No. 16457442
>>16457399
There is a religious people who believe boomers made it to the moon. This is just a reconstructed racist legend of better times, times which we will thankfully never see, because they never actually happened. This religious mooner cult want you to believe that it is very important that these boomers made it to the moon, despite that it signifies nothing. It is a myth to found their batshit science dogma upon, even while the legend would have most of the work being a mere engineering feat. Oh, and like every good story, the details get more and more bizarre. >nazi killing boomers were directed by nazis on getting to the moon >boomer capitalist triumph over cummie Russians even though there was no advantage gained whatsoever >collecting rocks is now the pinmacle of human excellence >lost ancient technology that cant be replicated Etc etc. The myth will only grow as it germinates in the collective unconscious. A dream of whiteopeia where old white men steal billions of tax dollars so they can play golf on the moon.
A drumpf wet dream that gets ever more ridiculous as you learn more details.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:54:29 UTC No. 16457448
>>16457406
if it worked, and perhaps it will as these systems improve and develop, what do you think you will see? why do i have to keep asking you this? You'll see a couple pixels on a screen where they tell you an apollo LM descent stage sits, and thats what you'll see. Theres no eyepiece to look through and what you see is the result of a LOT of computer processing and manipulation of data. Why would you trust that and not trust things like the LRO and Indian photos of the same thing but in much better detail?
Why would you trust those few pixels on a screen when you have no idea how the image is made? Youd be trusting other people just as much as i am by accepting the LRO et al images.
you see that?
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:55:31 UTC No. 16457450
>>16457442
and yet not a single bit of moonhoax cult 'evidence' is worth a single fuck. its all flat earth tier ignorance.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 21:56:32 UTC No. 16457453
>>16457448
why wouldn't it work?
> the astronomers were able to see details on the scale of one milli-arcsecond, corresponding to being able to distinguish, from the Earth, the headlights of a car on the Moon.
you're just scared there will be nothing to see
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 22:01:11 UTC No. 16457460
>>16457450
The burden of proof is on the mooner cult to present actual evidence. They pretend because there is a movie that it must happen, so then I guess new york was destroyed by aliums and thanos snapped us. And still, the mooners only have testimony from those who gain by the claims made. No whiteopeia golfing for you.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 22:09:17 UTC No. 16457469
>>16457453
ive mentioned once reason that i've come across already itt. Its just the way it works and its not simple to understand. take a dive into it if you want. im trying.
Its already been seen by the several lunar orbiters.
>waaah faaake
but why reject that and be willing to accept a coupld pixels on a screen generated by a computer processing multiple telescope inputs that you dont understand and can't see how it works?
WHY?
>>16457460
>16000 super HD photos
>many hours of 16mm footage of the whole thing
>Samples analyzed by labs around the world
>No technical reason to think it was done
>examples of every single bit of equipment used to do it on display
>technical documents for all of that stuff
>nobody who knows a damn thing about any single area of the engineering, physics, chemistry, etc has EVER come out and blown the whistle. ever.
yeah, i think that burden has been more than met. not for cultists of course, because nothing can meet their ever shifting goalposts of counts as evidence.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 22:42:47 UTC No. 16457512
>>16457469
>scientists get together to prove moon landing real
>decide use very large telescope to do so
>invite press and make big announcement
>look at landing sites
>oh shit
>silence
>errm sorry folks it's not possible to use this telescope for that purpose haha we were just kidding later nerds
Anonynous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 22:47:16 UTC No. 16457515
>>16450355
Ai deepfakes are only getting better each year.
Its too late to prove anything to nonbelievers.
Its over.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 22:50:54 UTC No. 16457518
>>16457512
hmm, i wonder if a proposed experiment has ever not worked like they thought it would? ANd did they really 'make a big announcement.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 22:53:44 UTC No. 16457520
>>16457518
>don't give reason why experiment failed
>never try again just say it can't be done
press announcement
https://archive.is/unZA
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 01:54:16 UTC No. 16457654
>>16450355
>The cameras must last long enough and be high quality
I'll only trust it if the production value could be confused with a teenage girl's tiktok.
If it's "too good", then obviously it's just smoke&mirrors movie magic, and if it's too grainy, then that also means it's faked.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 12:07:51 UTC No. 16458058
>>16457520
im not seeing any promises or big announcement anon. just a mention which was elaborated on by a journalist. He even said it was just a test....
but of course, you know, by the power of your mine alone, everything that happened - that they tried, that they managed to get the high resolution images...and saw.....nothing....that they quickly covered it up, and that they, like everyone else in our world, lied.
But i'll tell you what i know from long experience talking to cultists like you; that if tomorrow such a telescope produced images showing signs of the landings, you would simply call it fake and carry on. You've no more reason to accept a few pixels on a screen produced by computers than you have to reject those taken by probes in lunar orbit. Its just that you want to.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 12:41:34 UTC No. 16458083
>>16457469
>photos you have never seen originals of
>footage you have never seen the film for
>labs have also been given confirmed fake samples
>no technical reason is invalid argument
>star wars museums means star wars is real
>technical documentation is just fiction
>no whistleblowers, oh wait, there are whistleblowers but they the science revokes their science status for their apostacy
>this list is actually just pointers to evidence instead of evidence, much like how their fabricated pictures are pointers to real data instead of data
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 12:47:09 UTC No. 16458085
>>16458083
>>photos you have never seen originals of
>>footage you have never seen the film for
wrong. they have been rescanned a few times over the years as people make new documentaries and technology improves.
>>labs have also been given confirmed fake samples
examples?
>>no technical reason is invalid argument
oh ok, since you say so
>>star wars museums means star wars is real
lol, now THAT is invalid. Has anyone ever seen a xwing fly? Lightsabers working?
>>technical documentation is just fiction
strange then that some guys were able to construct a working navigation computer and that no engineer of any kind has ever said any is fake. Would you care to show how a specific technical document is fiction? Can you show that any single part of the equipment used could not be made and work?
> there are whistleblowers
who? on what subject? with what supposed credentials that were revoked by who?
>your list is a load of waffle containing nothing but errors and unsupported assertions.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 12:48:33 UTC No. 16458086
>>16458085
>has anyone ever seen x-wings fly
You have never seen anyone land on the moon in any more meaningful way than an x-wing flying. Not a good look buck-o.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 12:54:10 UTC No. 16458092
>>16458086
rockets work, it was all tested out in orbit and on the ground. theres not a single thing about any of the craft that anyone has ever been able to establish as being unworkable.
xwings on the other hand cannot work and neither can lightsabers
if this is your best shot then you're a waste of time and cant be taken seriously
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 12:58:58 UTC No. 16458099
>>16458092
Irrelevant goalpost shifting. You made a bad argument that is instantly refuted. You have yet to present a single shred of evidence for anything, and you can't stand that everything is directly paralleled to pedowood feature films.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:00:29 UTC No. 16458101
>>16458092
Anon you shouldn't argue with retards, no matter what you say he'll never change his mind. People like this don't base their knowledge on evidence, they make an assumption which they convince themselves is true and then bend over backwards tying themselves in knots looking for ways to validate it and ignoring or reacting with hostility to contrary evidence. It's better to let these people shout into the void than to give them attention
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:08:56 UTC No. 16458112
>>16458099
>Irrelevant goalpost shifting.
lol. starting to think you dont even know what that term means.
Everything about the design, construction and operation of the entire apollo stack is known and supported and observed. You can't point to a single damn thing that couldn't work, and you know this which is why you're now running away from your previous argument.
>>16458101
yeah i understand. its more of a way to oppose their dumb lies, bring out their hypocrisy, and as encouragement to read more interesting things as they bring them up.
but you're not wrong. theres a consistent fixation on their first order conceptions in any subject raised, as in they heard about something, had a thought abaout ('that sounds fake' 'well what about X?' etc) and never bothered to go a single step further, preferring the comfort of assuming their initial thought was perfectly reasonable and informed.
Of course it wasn't, because they lack not only specific information relating to the subject but also a basic foundation which would allow them to approach any questions properly. Arrogance takes over and never relinquishes the reins. Then they spend years arguing for it on the internet, desperate to never admit they were wrong...that could ever have been wrong.
This is how cults work, coupled with a desire to set themselves apart from everyone else, who they hold in contempt generally.
its sad.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:09:46 UTC No. 16458114
>>16458112
Your evidence of moon landing is a feature film shot by stanley kubrick in an air force base my guy.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:13:31 UTC No. 16458120
>>16458114
a US airforce base?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:46:03 UTC No. 16458514
>>16458058
>im not seeing any promises or big announcement anon
because you're turning a blind eye
let me help you out:
>Dr Richard West, an astronomer at the VLT, confirmed that his team was aiming to achieve "a high-resolution image of one of the Apollo landing sites".
>The first attempt to spot the spacecraft will be made using only one of the VLT's four telescope mirrors, which are fitted with special "adaptive optics" to cancel the distorting effect of the Earth's atmosphere.
>The VLT team hopes to improve on this, with the aim of detecting clear evidence for the presence of the landers.
>Dr West said that the challenge pushed the optical abilities of one VLT mirror to its limits: if this attempt failed, the team planned to use the power of all four mirrors. "They would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites," he said.
>Trained on the Moon, such astonishing resolution should enable it to see the base of one or more of the six lunar modules which Nasa insists landed on the Moon between 1969 and 1972. Any images of the modules would be the first not to have been taken from space by Nasa.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:19:17 UTC No. 16458587
>>16458514
>was aiming to achieve
>hopes to improve on this
>most probably be sufficiently sharp
you're blowing this out of proportion, just like the pop-sci journo. you should be ashamed.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:23:04 UTC No. 16458597
>>16458514
>https://elt.eso.org/about/faq/#que
>to achieve the finest resolution (image sharpness) the ELT needs adaptive optics. The ELT adaptive optics system relies on natural or artificial guide stars, which would not work in the case of trying to image the lunar surface as the surface is very bright.
The shadow cast by the landers when the Sun is low in the sky would be much longer than 10 metres, which might make the problem a little easier, but they are still narrow. The landers also catch the Sun briefly when the surrounding plain is still in darkness, at sunrise or sunset. In these cases, they would appear as a point of light that might be seen — but could still not be distinguished from a boulder or other natural light-coloured surface feature of the Moon.
VLT uses the exact same guide star system to reach its maximum resolution, and that wont work when looking at something very bright like the moon.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:39:40 UTC No. 16458749
>>16458597
Its like you don't even realize the moon can be occluded by the earf.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:51:02 UTC No. 16458764
>>16458749
you're saying they should do it in the dark, and that you would accept the terrible image quality of a couple pixels a slightly different shade of grey as proof the landings happened?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:00:09 UTC No. 16458777
>>16458764
>too bright
>too dark
>lets just not do it
Why is the scientist always coping?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:09:17 UTC No. 16458791
>>16458777
checked
because they're covering up the truth
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:15:05 UTC No. 16458797
>>16458777
checked trips
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:21:04 UTC No. 16458804
protip: arguing with double digit IQ schizos isn't fruitful
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:25:38 UTC No. 16458812
>calls people skeptical of the moon landing cultists
>meanwhile they run around with nasa apparel and religiously believe anything they are told and shown
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:28:04 UTC No. 16458813
>>16458777
Here's how it goes with you chumps
>NUH UH, give me some evidence of X
>Gets evidence of X
>NUH UUUH thats fake!!!11
>Doesn't feel need to say why its fake
>Repeat
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:34:22 UTC No. 16458819
>>16458813
Are you schizophrenic? Nobody knows what you are talking about. The quoted green text has nothing to do with this. Nobody sees the spook you are boxing. You didn't even get digits.
Fuck me.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 20:40:05 UTC No. 16458831
>>16458819
i just gave yo the standard routine for being a moonhoaxie faggot. its what they do.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 21:22:41 UTC No. 16458870
>>16458831
>scientist posts picture of chorizo
>says it's a picture of a star taken by the james webb telescope
>later admit it's a joke
if hadn't said it's a joke you would still believe it's a star
that's how you function. you can't question the reality of what you're presented, because then you would be like those people that you hate so much, the "moon landing hoax cultists" as you call them. your hatred makes you susceptible to lies and deception
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 21:33:39 UTC No. 16458880
>>16458870
twitter was on fire when he posted that amazing image made by the james webb telescope
and they would have hated on everyone calling it a slice of chorizo
just like you and the moon landing
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 21:41:27 UTC No. 16458896
>>16450355
You can't live stream in space retard there's no cell towers there to transmit the data
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 21:45:56 UTC No. 16458900
>>16458870
>>16458880
it's always funny watching you guys make it clear what this is all about for you.
>you can't question the reality of what you're presented
>your hatred makes you susceptible to lies and deception
>you're a sheep
>im so smart and open minded etc etc
You automatically assume that anyone not into your cult of baseless claims of fakery (flat earth, moon hoax etc) hasn't bothered looking into it, just accepted it, and could POSSIBLY cope and so and so forth.
The problem is that your claims are garbage. Your reasoning is shit. You ignorance of all the subjects you bring up is embarrassing. Thats how it is. Its only your arrogance that keeps you going, you complete inability to ever admit fault or that you simply didn't understand something.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 21:51:49 UTC No. 16458904
>>16458900
you claim that everyone who is skeptical of the moon landing just doesn't know what they're talking about. even when photographers are analyzing photographs. even when AI is calling the picutres fake. even when the head of the russian equivalent of NASA says he has yet to see irrefutable proof that man walked on the moon. you just ignore that and say they don't know what they're talking about
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 21:56:21 UTC No. 16458911
>>16458904
>photographers are analyzing photographs
a small few who talk bullshit about shadows.
>AI
lol, what was it trained on?
>head of the russian equivalent of NASA
yeah, i looked into that guy once. didn't have much reason and evidence to back up his old commie seething.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 21:58:40 UTC No. 16458915
>>16458911
>what was it trained on?
moon pictures from unmanned missions, such as the chinese
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:01:30 UTC No. 16458923
>>16458915
hard to compare those to super HD hassleblad photos. out of interest, what reasons did this 'AI' give for it being faked?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:02:31 UTC No. 16458925
Peter Hyatt did a forensic analysis of one of Neil Armstrong's interviews and he concluded that he is being deceptive. What would he be lying about in such a basic interview?
starts at around 4 minutes in
https://odysee.com/Analysing-The-As
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:24:56 UTC No. 16458949
>>16458925
Hyatt himself thinks that he was wary of giving away any kind of hints to the USSR about their technology, procedures and so on. Mr Hyatt is quite clear that he does not believe the landings were faked. Contact him if you like, ive found him to be very open and willing to interact with respectful questions.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:29:13 UTC No. 16458952
>>16458949
what matters is that hyatt forensically proved that armstrong was lying
his personal opinion why he's lying is irrelevant since he doesn't know the truth
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:30:18 UTC No. 16458954
>>16458949
also, there's no talk about any technological details. it's all about armstrong's personal experience on the moon
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:31:39 UTC No. 16458955
>>16458952
well, he said he was being deceptive, and that can include being evasive around a certain point, avoiding to give full answers etc. And sure, depending on what was being discussed thats understandable if Armstrong was concerned about not revealing something which might help the USSR in their own efforts to reach the moon.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:34:54 UTC No. 16458959
>>16458955
which part of the interview would lead you to believe that?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:36:01 UTC No. 16458961
>>16458954
i'll have to take another look at it, its been a while. But i dont take this kind of thing as 100% reliable, because its just not. its a highly subjective activity based on a number of things applied blanket style to what anyone, whoever they are, says about anything.
no one claims its 100% accurate at all times and places. What if someone is just very uncomfortable talking about personal experiences? Armstrong is famous for his incredibly cool impersonal nature, and press conferences are hardly a nice family chat around the fire.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:38:51 UTC No. 16458964
>>16458961
you should compare it with interviews he gave before the fake moon landing
a different person
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:46:00 UTC No. 16458971
>>16458964
i disagree, having seen the preflight press conference also. and really, if you think he was set on faking the whole thing from the start, knowing he would have to for years ahead of time, why would he change afterwards?
I mean, you'd have to think that all the filming was done prior to the 'launch' anyway, wouldn;t you? Or was it done live on set somewhere, no second takes?
Didnt Kubrick direct it all? Well, Kubrick is famous for not having left the UK since 1961, so the filming probably happened in the UK....but he was super busy filming all his big films through that perdid, taking a very long time to produce his movies as he went. Compare how long it took to film and produce his famous movies in terms of weeks of filming per hour of final product, with how long the footage of apollo 11 is. How long would that have taken this super autist director to get right?
And then theres all the other landings to keep in mind. DId Kubrick film those too?
No, i dont buy what you're saying really. Did they not know it was going to be faked until the day of launch or something? Could that really be true, given how involved each of them was with the design and construction of a part of the craft anf equipment used to do it?
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 22:48:24 UTC No. 16458974
gotta go. catch up tomorrow if thread is up
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 23:13:35 UTC No. 16458999
>>16458971
if you can find this video with sound then you will realize that he is different person when he talks about something he doesn't have to lie about
at the end of this video he is giving an interview but i couldn't find it with sound
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRJ
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 12:31:39 UTC No. 16459576
>>16458999
or maybe he's just in a better mood without a room full of people asking him about personal things? Maybe just coming out of 3 weeks of quarantine and constant debriefings doesn't leave a guy in the best state of mind.
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 13:05:28 UTC No. 16459600
>>16459593
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIp
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 13:13:23 UTC No. 16459605
>>16459576
he’s not in a room full of people in the interview analyzed by Peter Hyatt. Neither did he just come out of quarantine. You’re just grasping at straws at this point
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 13:48:57 UTC No. 16459623
>>16459605
oh ok sorry, i thought it was carried out on the press conference like i said, its been a while since i read the analysis and i clearly remembered wrongly. reading through it again right now.
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 14:22:38 UTC No. 16459649
>>16459605
Ok, read it through a couple times. Have to say its really not very compelling. The constant obsession with 'i' and 'we' pronouns seems very weak to me, since the man being analyzed has spent basically he entire life as an engineer scientists, trained to produce concise reports where the individual is specifically not part of the information others want to see in those reports.
As Mr Hyatt says
>We need a larger sample from Mr. Armstrong to obtain a more definitive opinion
and this would required a fairly in depth study of his report style, written and spoken. Of especially interest would be anything related to his dramatic experiences during the X15 and Gemini programs, along with his near death while flying the LLTV, all of which saw him experience very emotionally impactful events of life threatening nature.
It a well known part of Apollo history that he was a few seconds from crashing the LLTV into the ground before ejecting to safety (still with some injury), but then calmly returned to his office to write the report, so calm that no one knew what had happened. Alan Bean mentions this in a few interviews as being a very good example of Neils utterly cool and calm nature....not one given to emotion.
Additionally there are several statements in the analysis that strain credibility. One such example:
>We do note the inclusion of “certainly” as an unnecessary emphasis.
Why does he get to decide that its unnecessary? Using such a turn of phrase is entirely normal if one is enthusiastic about the thing being spoken of. Well all do it. its a strange nitpicky thing to draw attention to.
And then there is the general assumption that the analysts expectations are a universal, with a constant refrain of statements like
>we would expect..
>he should....
over and over again....but with zero reference to Armstrong's normal pattern of thought and speech.
1/2
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 14:24:15 UTC No. 16459655
>>16459605
2/2
Overall this analysis lacks depth and appears to be a rote application of a few 'rules of interpretation' developed for use in a different context on non-specialists such as trained test pilot engineers talking about scientific subjects.
here is the transcript.
https://www.richplanet.net/astronau
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 14:58:54 UTC No. 16459690
>>16459649
now anon has become the forensic statement analyst
hyatt was so surprised at the result that he ran the interview through another analyst
The Rule of the Negative
Truthful people tell us what they saw, heard, and experienced. When one tells us what they did not see, hear or experience, the analyst recognizes that this sentence increases in importance:
I myself did not see planets from the surface, but I suspect they might er be visible.
Here we not only have “the rule of the negative” but we have the unnecessary addition of the word “myself.”
Since he experienced something highly unique, not only does he report what he did not see, but he feels it necessary to input himself into the sentence, where no such imputation should be needed. Who else would be answering this question, or “not seeing” what he did not see?
He offers a weak assertion: “I suspect they might be visible” appropriately matching “might” with “suspect.”
Being that he has, thus far, not told us what he has seen, it is interesting to note the inclusion of the word “suspect.” What other word might he have chosen?
“I think they might be visible…” would be an “appropriately weak” assertion where one lacks certainty. The word “think” is the most commonly chosen, therefore, we note the use of “suspect” or “suspicion” within his vocabulary in context of his answer.
We continue to wait to hear him tell us what he saw.
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 15:56:40 UTC No. 16459734
>>16458999
did they scrub the audio? i can't find it anywhere
deleted like the original recordings of the first steps on the moon
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 16:14:00 UTC No. 16459746
>>16459690
>now anon has become the forensic statement analyst
not at all, but i think the few points i made are worth considering. You cant deny that Mr Hyatt makes several mentions of needing more samples of Armstrongs normal baseline, which so far as i can see has not been done.
Its really not unreasonable to want to place this interview in the wider context to get a better idea if the normal analysis method applies properly to a trained engineer, let alone an individual noted for his absolute calmness and ability to distance himself from powerful memories and emotions like Neil Armstrong is well known for doing, noted by anyone who worked with him.
I understand that you want this to be the gottcha that the landings were faked but its really not. deliberate deception is just one of the potential interpretations and for me its not well supported enough with the wider context of Armstrongs normal pattern of expression.
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 16:21:21 UTC No. 16459747
>>16459746
hyatt confirmed that he's lying
so did his wife, who is also working as a forensic analyst
you should watch this interview to get his baseline when he's not being deceptive
>>16458999
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:06:14 UTC No. 16460026
>>16459747
>hyatt confirmed that he's lying
he has an opinion that he's being deceptive, maybe trying to avoid certain things. I've said what im going to say on this - unless this one short interview is placed in the wider context of this trained engineer used to discussing his experiences in a non-personal way it's not that compelling. You have to remember that he was a test pilot for years, constantly tasked with carrying out very specific actions in aircraft and then making technical reports where there is no 'i', there is only the aircraft and how it responded.
Neil Armstrong is well known as about the most cool headed and least emotionally expressive person anyone in the program had ever known, and also a very humble team player who didn't like drawing attention to himself. That he would prefer to speak of 'we' more than 'i' fits perfectly with his persona as ive come to know it through numerous autobiographies by the apollo guys, so what Mr Hyatt has to say really doesn't come as a surprise at all.
Again, it comes down to being familiar with the subject, a thing moonhoaxies really never are.
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:26:06 UTC No. 16460041
>>16460026
forensic statement analysis is a scientific method, not an opinion. meaning you can expect the same result every time you apply it. and peter hyatt was so surprised by the result of his analysis that he let another analyst look at the interview, who arrived at the same conclusion. as would any other statement analyst applying this method.
what he has an opinion about, however, is the reason why armstrong is lying. here anyone is free to speculate, but since the moon landing is a highly disputed subject, and the interview was merely about his personal experience on the moon, it's obvious that the reason why he's being deceptive is to maintain this lie.
claiming that it's his baseline, that he just talks this way, is also incorrect, since in other interviews, like the one i posted, he does not talk in a way that linguistically disconnects himself from the subject he's talking about.
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:42:36 UTC No. 16460056
>>16460041
>a scientific method
but can we say for sure that the same method applies in all cases, with all people?
>meaning you can expect the same result every time you apply it.
i dont believe that and Mr Hyatt makes several statements in that analysis which indicate that neither does he.
> the moon landing is a highly disputed subject,
not really. theres no technical reason it couldn't be done and no evidence that the 16000 super HD photos and hours of 16mm footage are fake. Thats why it tends to come down to stuff like this.
>t's obvious
its far from obvious. Mt Hyatt is not nearly so sure as you are.
>the one i posted
yes, just one. it is necessary to look at a lot more than that. perhaps i will.
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 21:44:04 UTC No. 16460058
>>16460041
>forensic statement analysis is a scientific method,
its no more scientific than psychology or sociology. very soft science at best. lets not pretend this is physics.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 01:12:08 UTC No. 16460351
No one cares what tranime ret/a/rds think.
>>>/a/
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 09:03:15 UTC No. 16460692
>>16460026
take good note on how is using rhetoric to spin this around
freemasons learn this art called the trivium, which includes grammar, rhetoric and logic/dialectic, in order to manipulate via language
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 09:40:53 UTC No. 16460711
>>16460692
Nowadays we call it "prompt engineering", pseud.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:06:42 UTC No. 16460725
>>16460711
“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. Of course the great advantage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn’t only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word which is simply the opposite of some other words? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take ‘good,’ for instance. If you have a word like ‘good,’ what need is there for a word like ‘bad’? ‘Ungood’ will do just as well–better, because it’s an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of ‘good,’ what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like ‘excellent’ and ‘splendid’ and all the rest of them? ‘Plusgood’ covers the meaning, or ‘doubleplusgood’ if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there’ll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words–in reality, only one word. Don’t you see the beauty of that, Winston?…”
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:12:11 UTC No. 16460729
>>16460725
>Don't you see the beauty of that?
No, it sounds like someone's conspiring against our voices.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:15:14 UTC No. 16460732
>>16460725
Excellent means a totally different thing than double plus good you retard.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 10:48:37 UTC No. 16460765
>>16460725
Kek't at how far the point flew over your pop-cultured head.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 12:36:39 UTC No. 16460833
>>16460692
note how you haven't got a single good argument; all you have is supposition and innuendo, ignorance and assertion.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 12:39:04 UTC No. 16460836
>>16460833
Apparently we only need one word for all of that. I'm choosing 'fag'. Problem is, the powers in control of the world actually support this delusional crap.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 16:58:35 UTC No. 16461107
>>16460056
>no evidence that the 16000 super HD photos and hours of 16mm footage are fake
what's disputed is not the recording media, but the true location of where it was recorded.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 17:54:22 UTC No. 16461163
>>16461107
so the photos are really what they are claimed to be, which is photos of guys on the moon, but they weren't taken on the moon, is that the idea?
That makes no sense. Of course the photos are disputed...not with any legitimate disputation mind you, just by people who can't into shadows.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 18:13:31 UTC No. 16461175
>>16461163
>missing the point this badly
are you actually retarded?
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 18:23:44 UTC No. 16461188
>>16461175
no, its just that you made a distinction where there is none. you think the photos are fake, i get that. but all the reasons for why you think they are fake are retarded. very very retarded.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 18:36:47 UTC No. 16461211
>>16461188
I don't know if you're autistic, retarded or esl, but the film and photographs exist as physical objects and nobody disputes that part. the only part anyone disputes is when and where the footage was obtained.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 18:38:23 UTC No. 16461215
>>16461188
>but all the reasons for why you think
you have invented these reasons in your head as I have written absolutely nothing about this here.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 18:46:20 UTC No. 16461230
>>16461211
>exist as physical objects and nobody disputes that part.
well, some of you fags do but for the most part obviously not lol.
>>16461215
you dont need to. its all the same tired old crap.
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 18:49:07 UTC No. 16461234
freemasons claimed territorial jursidiction on the moon, which is illegal due to the outer space treaty of 1967. but given the lack of legal action it's just more proof that it's all fake and gay
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 18:50:09 UTC No. 16461235
>>16461234
the moon landing is one of the pillars of their new world order, that's why they are so hellbent on keeping it alive
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 19:24:58 UTC No. 16461276
>>16461235
>the moon landing is one of the pillars of their new world order,
how do you figure that?
Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 22:42:39 UTC No. 16461494
>>16453456
We will never leave Earth retarded faggot.
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 13:04:08 UTC No. 16462056
>>16461494
why?
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 13:39:44 UTC No. 16462084
>>16462056
We're shielded from the heavens by an ethereal shield dome 9km in the sky. Ever wonder why there's no building taller than Everest that's why! Lyingtists are trying to hide the truth from us and make us feel worthless and small when they say there are thousands of planets. There aren't. There are stars and wondering stars but neither of those are planets or magical balls of gas and fire and they're closer than NASA (Not A Space Agency) would have you believe
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 13:47:53 UTC No. 16462092
>>16462084
>9km
really? you know that commercial airplanes fly higher than that every day?
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 14:53:52 UTC No. 16462164
>>16462092
No they fly at an altitude of 8km they might lie and say they fly higher but they don't
Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 17:31:48 UTC No. 16462382
>>16462164
they do. you're wrong. now what?
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 07:08:32 UTC No. 16463254
>>16461276
>counts as greatest achievement of mankind
>began the manifestation of the space age
>huge efforts to dismiss any dissent
it's one of the biggest lies ever sold as truth laying the ground work for the fake colonization of space
and we can go into the alchemical side of it -- the craft practiced by freemasons
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 12:12:38 UTC No. 16463462
>>16463254
its just too bad that all your evidence for it being faked is absolutely retarded and depends upon the ignorance of the hearer for acceptance.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 12:58:02 UTC No. 16463482
>>16463462
As an event that you claimed happened, the onus is on you to provide evidence.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:05:39 UTC No. 16463484
>>16463482
theres tons of evidence. the onus is on you to demonstrate why its all fake and why everyone else is wrong.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:10:31 UTC No. 16463487
>>16463484
Not how the burden of proof works.
Also, endlessly failing to point to the tons of evidence is schizophrenic. Meds sir please.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:26:43 UTC No. 16463498
>>16463487
>16000 super HD photos
>many hours of 16mm film footage
>800lbs of moon rock samples
>all equipment on display around the country
>no one not a retard has ever claimed it couldn't have been done
You're choosing to ignore the evidence. not my problem.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:27:54 UTC No. 16463501
>>16463498
>never seen the original photos
>no chain of evidence on them
>not even presenting links to them
The mooners, every single time.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:47:40 UTC No. 16463518
>>16463501
keep fingers in your ears faggot. LA LA LA LA LA IM NOT LISTENING IM NOT LISTENING LALALLALALALAA
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:50:05 UTC No. 16463519
>>16463518
>another post
>still no evidence
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:51:36 UTC No. 16463520
>>16463519
lol. imagine thinking you have a point. imagine thinking that.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:53:10 UTC No. 16463522
>>16463520
>another post
>still no evidence
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:56:24 UTC No. 16463524
>>16463522
>another post
>still has no point
>still too lazy to take first step by himself
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 13:58:07 UTC No. 16463528
>>16463524
The mooner crying that others aren't making the argument for him. Back to your reddit safe space.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 14:03:03 UTC No. 16463531
>>16463528
the moonhoaxie avoiding the evidence. Back to your cult youtube channel.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 15:12:37 UTC No. 16463602
>>16463498
>16000 super HD photos
>many hours of 16mm film footage
footage taken on earth as proven by photographers, and AI
also, the only high quality original footage of the first steps on the moon has been deliberately deleted along with the telemetry
>800lbs of moon rock samples
moon rocks have been collected on earth as well as by unmanned soviet and chinese missions
>all equipment on display around the country
except for the sophisticated simulator that was used to train for the landing
>no one not a retard has ever claimed it couldn't have been done
many have claimed it couldn't have been done due to the intense radiation surrounding the earth as well as the space weather
you can add to that
>forensic statement analysis proving armstrong is lying
>earth telescope unable to spot the landers on the landing sites despite having the angular resolution to do so
>the fact that all manned missions are in low earth orbit and no one has been to the moon ever since
>buzz aldrin telling a little girl they didn't go
>many astronauts refusing to swear on the bible that they did go
>apollo astronaut alan bean unaware whether they passed the van allen radiation belt or not
>head of roscosmos saying he has yet to see irrefutable proof
etc
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 15:14:55 UTC No. 16463607
>>16463602
>proven by photographers,
lol
>and AI
lmao even
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 15:15:56 UTC No. 16463611
>>16463602
>many have claimed it couldn't have been done due to the intense radiation surrounding the earth as well as the space weather
yeah, many morons who dont know the first thing about radiation
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 15:20:19 UTC No. 16463617
>>16463602
>Fake AI photo in 2024
>Look this .jpg of a man with 16 fingers disapproves space!
It really is the golden age for the retarded
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 15:21:00 UTC No. 16463618
>>16463602
>proven by photographers
'photographers' who can't into shadows
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 15:26:42 UTC No. 16463626
>>16463618
No one was on the moon in 2001, your photo is fake, retard
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 15:29:07 UTC No. 16463634
>>16463618
>Copyright 2001
All NASA footage is public domain. Way to get hoisted by your own petard you retard
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 15:35:22 UTC No. 16463650
>>16463626
>>16463634
lol you fags are funny sometimes
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 16:23:17 UTC No. 16463732
>>16463618
shadows and hotspots
watch the documentary american moon, it covers many topics
also, myth busters did a debunk show of moon hoaxer claims. but they were so disingenuous that they had to play the moon jump footage at an incorrect frame rate so it wouldn't match with the original. turns out it matches perfectly when slowed down at the correct rate
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 16:34:24 UTC No. 16463745
>>16463732
>american moon
lol what a total load of bullshit anon. rammed full of lies and ignorance and you feel for it.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 16:47:33 UTC No. 16463758
>>16463732
>Photographers who can't into shadows
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 16:55:58 UTC No. 16463773
>>16463602
>earth telescope unable to spot the landers on the landing sites despite having the angular resolution to do so
where does such a telescope exist?
not even the hubble space telescope has enough angular resolution for that.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 17:11:03 UTC No. 16463796
>>16463773
the VLT (very large telescope) Interferometer in Chile has achieved an angular resolution of 1 milliarcsecond
they have not given a reason why it's not possible to look at the landing sites despite trying it
anon will now cite the answer given by the ELT (extremly large telescope) and equate it to the VLT-I, but that is misleading. the VLT-I has not given an answer why their attempt failed
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 17:18:06 UTC No. 16463810
>>16463758
>>16463618
>all the shadows align with the same dip
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 17:36:32 UTC No. 16463822
>>16463796
>angular resolution of 1 milliarcsecond
why don't you do a little trigonometry and find out how large a spot that is on something a quarter million miles away?
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 17:39:33 UTC No. 16463825
>>16463822
(d ÷ D) x 206,265 = α
d = diameter of the object
D = distance to object
α = angular resolution
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 17:41:21 UTC No. 16463828
>>16463822
the VLT-I scientists themsleves stated:
>With AMBER on the VLTI [2], the astronomers were able to see details on the scale of one milli-arcsecond, corresponding to being able to distinguish, from the Earth, the headlights of a car on the Moon.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 17:45:49 UTC No. 16463835
>>16463828
Do the calculation and then explain the numbers to us. Clearly someone with enough insight to refute the moon landings can use trigonometry better than Stacy from high school
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 17:47:03 UTC No. 16463840
>>16463828
>distinguish, from the Earth, the headlights of a car on the Moon.
you do understand this only means it could distinguish two bright objects if they are more than a meter apart from one another, right?
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 17:53:16 UTC No. 16463846
>>16463835
the formula is very basic
https://itu.physics.uiowa.edu/gloss
insert the size of the object you want to see (lunar lander=4m) and distance to the object (moon=380,000,000m)
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 17:59:08 UTC No. 16463853
>>16463828
AMBER see in near infra red, and one important reason why it does work well for viewing the moon is because to get its maximum resolution requires the adaptive optics to be functional. That means the use of a laser guide star, which cant be seen when theres a bright moon in view.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:04:19 UTC No. 16463857
>>16463853
if that's the reason why did they not state it?
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:11:02 UTC No. 16463861
>>16463857
they dont owe you a damn thing flard, and you wouldn't believe them anyway if you even understood.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:16:21 UTC No. 16463866
>>16463861
it's not about me
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:19:48 UTC No. 16463871
>>16463857
Because they're doing astronomical observations, they didn't build it to entertain your autismo ideas
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:29:31 UTC No. 16463886
>>16463871
they themselves made the announcement to look at the landing sites
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:32:00 UTC No. 16463889
>>16463886
>they themselves made the announcement to look at the landing sites
source?
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:33:34 UTC No. 16463892
>>16463889
https://archive.is/unZA
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:47:35 UTC No. 16463917
>>16463892
any actual press release, or is this single telegraph article from 2002 the only source that exists for this claim? i tried google and found nothing more.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:49:40 UTC No. 16463921
>>16463917
>dr richard west just lied about
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:03:17 UTC No. 16463940
>>16463921
you said they made an announcement, but there is only one single telegraph article that sounds like at most the whole thing is based on a couple of quotes from an informal conversation with West. that's not an announcement.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 19:23:45 UTC No. 16463975
>>16463940
>Dr Richard West, an astronomer at the VLT, confirmed that his team was aiming to achieve "a high-resolution image of one of the Apollo landing sites".
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 20:03:06 UTC No. 16464016
>>16463975
the fact that the quote is partially paraphrased makes it even more ambiguous. do you seriously consider something so tenuous to be a smoking gun?
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 20:10:00 UTC No. 16464025
>>16464016
the moonhoaxies try to make a big deal about this one story which clearly phrases the whole thing in terms which make it sound as if the attempt was something they were not sure about being able to carry out.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 20:44:09 UTC No. 16464062
>>16464016
>>16464025
they did try it
it failed
they did not give reasons why
>Now astronomers hope to kill off the conspiracy theory once and for all by using the Very Large Telescope (VLT) - by far the most powerful telescope in the world - to spot the Apollo lunar landers.
>Dr West said that the challenge pushed the optical abilities of one VLT mirror to its limits: if this attempt failed, the team planned to use the power of all four mirrors. "They would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites," he said.
>"We do not question the reality of the landings," he said. "It is more for instrument-testing purposes."
and yet.. no results? nothing to read up how it went?
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 21:20:18 UTC No. 16464093
>>16464062
write to them and ask if you like but you already know you wont accept a single thing they might say.
Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 21:28:36 UTC No. 16464101
>>16464062
>they did try it
>it failed
now you're literally making shit up.