Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 07:04:52 UTC No. 16621424

flat earth people arent exactly smart
i mean you can literally get a cheap ham radio/antenna, point it at the space station as it flies overhead and talk to the people on it

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 08:52:59 UTC No. 16621466

>>16621386
Even if there were such a telescope capable of that, it would by necessity be run by the ephemeral "They*", so conspiracy nuts and flerfers would still just dismiss it as perpetuating the "hoax".

*They = NASA, the US government, the scientific community, Jews, etc. Whoever can be made to fit.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 10:05:34 UTC No. 16621506

>>16621386
China already did that, and obviously found -- drum roll please -- nothing.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:22:30 UTC No. 16621542

>>16621506
Actually China did that, and found it.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:33:27 UTC No. 16621550

>>16621542
>Actually China did that, and found it.
Actually, you're lying. Since you know damn well, that no yankee was ever on the Moon.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:42:04 UTC No. 16621554

>>16621550
I'm Chinese and yes, we found it

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 11:55:29 UTC No. 16621560

>>16621554
>I'm Chinese and yes, we found it[.]
liar, liar, pants on fire
you're as Chinese as Barack Obama's Kenyan father
post photos of "the flag and stuff"

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:03:16 UTC No. 16621562

>>16621386
This has been done, the flags' shadows are clearly visible to giant telescopes and orbiters, though the flags themselves are small/thin enough and oriented such that they're harder to see

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:09:34 UTC No. 16621565

>>16621562
>shadows are clearly visible to giant telescopes
nope. probes in orbit yes, depending on how low they go down. your pic was taken from very low...25 miles altitude or soemthing like that

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:15:53 UTC No. 16621566

>>16621466
>we DON'T have common sense things like a telescope that can produce images of the moon and one that is not inexplicably ran by a branch of the us government
>take THAT blumf!

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 12:38:05 UTC No. 16621580

>>16621566
If your brain wasn’t the size of a walnut, you could have computed the apparent size of the lunar module in arcseconds and found out small telescopes available to amateurs cannot resolve such tiny scales. Alas.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:09:28 UTC No. 16621613

>>16621562
I never claimed, that
machines / robots / rovers were never on the Moon.
I claim, that
men were never on the Moon.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:28:43 UTC No. 16621623

>>16621613
thats a retarded thing to claim too

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:35:13 UTC No. 16621627

>>16621613
You didn't claim either of those things, you asked whether telescopes can see the flags.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:40:21 UTC No. 16621632

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:49:13 UTC No. 16621640

>>16621623
>that[']s a retarded thing to claim too
a "retard" is preferable to a liar

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:51:17 UTC No. 16621643

>>16621627
>You didn't claim either of those things, you asked whether telescopes can see the flags.
No I didn't.
Must have been another Anonymous.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:56:28 UTC No. 16621648

>>16621640
you can assume that im calling the claim retarded because its a stupid lie based on other lies.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:43:00 UTC No. 16621670

>>16621643
There can be only one

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:18:48 UTC No. 16621701

I genuinely can't tell if people in this thread are trolling or just retarded.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:20:10 UTC No. 16621703

Didn't the flag turn white from all the radiation? In 1000 years they'll think the French were the first to set foot on the moon.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:25:25 UTC No. 16621706

>>16621648
No man was ever on the Moon.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:26:28 UTC No. 16621707

>>16621670
Highlander

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:27:55 UTC No. 16621708

>>16621706
no man ever touched the moon with has naked body, i'll give you that much.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:32:47 UTC No. 16621714

>>16621580
>the s o yence can make a telescope that can "look so far it can see the light that left earth a millionerino years ago and see muh dinosaurs" (if we taxed people enough XDDDDDDDDD)
>meanwhile ICantMoon.png

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:35:45 UTC No. 16621718

>>16621714
how many arc seconds across is the descent stage of the LM?

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:39:22 UTC No. 16621721

>>16621718

I don't know? 420 Kubricks? Everyone knows "space" is fabrication, especially now.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 18:20:57 UTC No. 16621772

>>16621721
its actually expressed in millikubricks per square inch cubed.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 18:53:55 UTC No. 16621786

>>16621714
>I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING
>YET I HAVE STRONG AND LOUD OPINIONS

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:02:26 UTC No. 16621791

>>16621386
The flag was barely sticking in the ground. The had to push it in by hand and said it went in just a few inches. The launch of the lander probably knocked it over on takeoff. Also, we have satellite imagery of the landing spots already so I don't know what else you want.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:08:29 UTC No. 16621796

>>16621791
He seems to believe there were landers but that they were automated >>16621613

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:11:33 UTC No. 16621800

>>16621613
If they weren't manned most of them would have crashed or tipped over

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:22:56 UTC No. 16621810

>>16621800
just the terrain model used by the guidance computer meant that fully automated landings were basically impossible. it was pretty much the most rudimentary model of plain elevation levels and they all had to use actually seeing where it was trying to land them and then keep correcting it for boulders and craters etc.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:30:00 UTC No. 16621814

I have better things to do.
Than to dispute liars.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:38:24 UTC No. 16621827

>>16621810
Even if you assume they had modern sensors and algorithms, they'd still have failed frequently, just like it happens even to this day
Having a trained person just figuring out a good place to land and then wrangling the controls perfectly otherwise he'll die is just easier than developing reliable autonomous vehicles, and we can't even do that today here on Earth with cars

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:44:10 UTC No. 16621833

>>16621827
>Even if you assume they had modern sensors and algorithms, they'd still have failed frequently, just like it happens even to this day
sure yeah, thats what im getting it. today they have very high resolution models of the terrain and numerous methods of observing the ground as the probes come in, and still things are crashing or ending up on their side etc. having guys onboard watching out for stuff which would have killed them if the computer screwed it up was absolutely vital to the success of the landings

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:50:10 UTC No. 16621837

>>16621466
>Even if there were such a telescope capable of that, it would by necessity be run by the ephemeral "They*", so conspiracy nuts and flerfers would still just dismiss it as perpetuating the "hoax".
Like it or not, that would be a perfectly coherent response on their part. Only the I-heckin'-love-soience crowd thinks someone's the government's say-so is compelling evidence in favor of the government's earlier say-so.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:02:41 UTC No. 16621845

>>16621837
Doesn't have to be government. Any organization that could acquire a big, fancy and/or unusual telescope would be declared "suspect." You know this is true.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:14:06 UTC No. 16621862

Besides the fact that they can't even clearly answer some basic questions about what they saw on the moon or on the command module orbiting it; look at those dude's faces, those are not the faces of people who have just been on the moon, those are the faces of fraudsters who need to lie to the world and feel guilty and depressed about it, their body language is beyond obvious

https://youtu.be/BI_ZehPOMwI?si=dsKVAqvXn4gn3p3B

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:18:39 UTC No. 16621867

>>16621862
its usually the case that people who think it was faked dont like to consider that the question was 2 part and they were kind of answering over each other about what they saw and when. the whole 'did you see stars thing' was mostly about what they observed during a solar coronal observation, with if they saw stars at any other time getting mixed up into that.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:23:54 UTC No. 16621875

>>16621796
So NASA built a robot that climbed out of the lander and planted the flag?

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:25:51 UTC No. 16621879

>>16621875
>all that was faked by kubrick
you know its coming

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:26:28 UTC No. 16621880

>>16621875
You didn't post ''the flag'', you posted a black pixel and said it was the flag

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:53:58 UTC No. 16621907

>>16621424
Do they respond or tell you to stop being annoying.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:22:54 UTC No. 16621925

>>16621880
Technically, I posted >>16621466 which contained multiple images with multiple black pixels elongating as the sun sets, in a manner consistent with the shadow of an object at a location correlating precisely with the position shown in the film footage for that mission that the flag was planted at. But, whatever.

Anonymous at Mon, 17 Mar 2025 21:23:12 UTC No. 16621926

>>16621907
depends whos up there. sometimes you get radio nerds and they'll arrange stuff with clubs or just lurk on their frequency to see if anyone calls.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:35:47 UTC No. 16622089

>>16621566
>>>we DON'T have common sense things like a telescope that can produce images of the moon
Any telescope can image the Moon. That's not the same as seeing such tiny objects on the Moon.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 11:55:05 UTC No. 16622347

>>16622089
>the only images that cannot be produced happen to be these ones

Trust the plan.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:18:25 UTC No. 16622356

>>16621386
You can already verify the reflectors are there with a high-powered laser.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:44:32 UTC No. 16622393

if you can't audit it, its not real

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 13:45:52 UTC No. 16622396

>>16621386
They put a mirror you could check

But then google attacked

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 16:35:35 UTC No. 16622456

>>16622347
you also cant see other small object on the moon either. its basic optical limits on telescopes.

>>16622356
>>16622396
not at home you can't. you can range the moon using VHF radio though

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:08:11 UTC No. 16622483

>>16621718
from earth maybe 0.0005

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 19:55:27 UTC No. 16622608

>>16622347
Who are you quoting?

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 20:01:53 UTC No. 16622616

>>16622608
the other anon, but he's being a faggot by trying to make out like he was saying 'you just cant image the lunar module because you cant so shut up', which isn't what he was saying at all.

ignore him. just another fucking moron guy who thinks he understandings anything enough to know the landings were faked.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 20:47:52 UTC No. 16622659

>>16622616
No-one's stopping you from buying a telescope and trying.
And then buying a bigger one when you realise that one wasn't good enough.
And then a bigger one, and a bigger one...

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 20:56:33 UTC No. 16622680

>>16622659
its not really a matter of trial and error though. thats the point. you can get a very good idea of whats possible to resolve with some basic calculations.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 21:07:23 UTC No. 16622697

>>16622680
I very much doubt this guy is a "trust the math" kind of person, so a practical demonstration might be more illuminating.

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 22:22:08 UTC No. 16622880

>>16622697
its his money

Anonymous at Tue, 18 Mar 2025 22:33:17 UTC No. 16622927

>>16621703
sensible kek

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 07:03:36 UTC No. 16624150

>>16621562
>>16621632
>what, you caught Nasa passing out fake photos?
>that was DEBOONKED by photos from Nasa

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 08:52:39 UTC No. 16624169

>>16622456
>range the moon using vhf
not with any kind of equipment you'd want in your backyard
likewise I don't suggest anyone bother the ISS astronauts with any less than 25w PEP or otherwise a very well computed and tested VHF antenna made for the purpose. Of course a 4-8 watts HT -can- do it but I can also show you an audio clip of my dad being "that asshole"

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 09:22:23 UTC No. 16624183

>>16622089
you can literally fit the moon between your thumb and index finger but somehow you can't see a flag taller than a person

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 09:27:09 UTC No. 16624184

>>16621926
Sounds comfy

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 09:55:07 UTC No. 16624187

Why do all Moon landing was a hoax people describe themselves as 'smart but lazy'?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:47:55 UTC No. 16624236

>>16624169
>not with any kind of equipment you'd want in your backyard
sure, no problem. a long yagi and a >100W VHF transceiver attached to your computer really isn't a big deal. yagis are not hard to make or you can buy a fold down one to save packed space. Some people go further than that, using stacked yagis or dishes, but it can be done with simpler setups. Why do you think its not possible in your backyard? and anyway, its 9000% easier to do than trying to laser range it lol

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 12:48:56 UTC No. 16624237

>>16624187
because they rely on feelings and memes for their opinions

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:29:16 UTC No. 16624247

>>16624237
Yeah like when some of the most famous professional photographers in Europe were asked to take a look at the pics allegedly taken on the moon in ''American Moon'' and they were all in agreement they were taken in a studio with reflectors. Those were not ''hoaxers'', they had no opinion whatsoever about the moon landing being fake and yet they were still all in agreement it was beyond obvious the photographs were taken with reflectors in a studio

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:35:08 UTC No. 16624250

>>16624247
>most famous professional photographers in Europe
are they professional lunar photographers? were they shown original shots or ones which were altered?
What about all the professionals who say the landings were real? they are far in the majority. why do you reject those professionals and accept the opinions of a couple photographers that you were not there to observe for yourself?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 13:37:43 UTC No. 16624252

>>16624247
https://moonhoaxdebunked.blogspot.com/2014/07/532-how-come-famous-photographers-claim.html

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 14:14:28 UTC No. 16624267

>>16624247
>most famous professional photographers in Europe
They are clearly the most retarded as well.
>THE SHADOWS SHOULD BE SHARPER BECAUSE THE SUN IS FAR AWAY!!!!
The Sun is not a point source you greasy wop and it's pretty much as far away from the Earth as it is from the Moon and it doesn't cast sharp shadows here so why would that be the case on the Moon?
Mama mia.....

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 14:24:09 UTC No. 16624272

>>16624267
just the way they treat the shadows in Q35 is amazingly retarded. the icing on the stupidcake is the narrator ending the section with the ultimate declaration that ITS IMPOSSIBLE for shadows to diverge when the sun is from the side. vidrel

it was funny how, when talking about shadows seen from 90 degrees to the side that they then show a bunch of photos where the sun is not 90 degrees to the side

i can't decide if American Moon is deliberately being this retarded of its just a consequence of being a retarded moonhoax believer. its probably just a feedback loop - be retarded - get into moonhoax stuff - get more retarded and confused - get more into moonhoax stuff and so on. a spiral of retardedness.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 14:27:18 UTC No. 16624273

>>16624267
and with regard to the edges of the shadows thing, its also just a false claim. even the shadow cast on the moon during an eclipse has soft edges. this will also flush out the flat earthers

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 15:41:39 UTC No. 16624302

>>16621386
What would it prove? The flag could be sent there by manless carrier.
Probably it could even be thrown there from the earth by some pneumatic methods, so that it would unfold as the arrow hits the moon.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 15:49:27 UTC No. 16624306

>>16621613
>claimed, that
nice slavic comma right there

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 17:12:14 UTC No. 16624352

>>16624267
Explain the drop offs in light, there are insanely huge drop offs in light in the pics allegedly taken on the moon, those are IMPOSSIBLE on the moon because the sun illuminates the surface with the same intensity everywhere, it's so fucking obvious they are using reflectors, you literally need to be braindead to not see it

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 17:15:31 UTC No. 16624355

>>16621613
>>16621706
>>16621714
>>16621862
>>16624247
Reminder:
Yuri’s flight will forever have less evidence of existing than the American moon landings.
Russian spaceflight got mogged by Elon.
Russia will be partitioned by China and Europe in less than 10 years.
You might as well jump off your commie block.

>>16624187
That’s what Russians imagine themselves as.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 18:26:17 UTC No. 16624395

>>16621424
no way?

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 18:30:07 UTC No. 16624399

>>16621424
It’s not as simple as just pointing a cheap radio at the sky, but with the right setup—and the proper amateur radio license—you can indeed listen to, and sometimes even communicate with, astronauts aboard the International Space Station (ISS) during its passes.
Key Points

Listening vs. Transmitting:
Many amateur radio operators build relatively inexpensive directional antennas (like Yagis) and use them with budget-friendly radios to listen to ISS transmissions. Transmitting, however, is more regulated. The ISS has specific frequencies and protocols, and you must follow licensing and operational rules.

Licensing and Regulations:
To transmit legally, you need an amateur radio license, and any communication attempts have to adhere to established protocols. For instance, the ARISS (Amateur Radio on the International Space Station) program coordinates scheduled contacts, usually with schools or organized groups, rather than random, impromptu conversations.

Equipment and Tracking:
While entry-level equipment can work, tracking a fast-moving target like the ISS demands either a manually steerable antenna or an automated system to keep the signal locked during the brief pass overhead. The window of opportunity is typically only a few minutes as the station passes by.

Practical Experience:
Many enthusiasts start by simply listening to ISS transmissions, which can be quite rewarding. If you plan to transmit, it’s wise to join a local amateur radio club or consult online resources dedicated to satellite communications to understand the nuances and ensure you’re operating within legal bounds.

In summary, yes—it’s possible to engage in amateur radio communication with the ISS, but it requires the right mix of equipment, technical know-how, and adherence to licensing regulations.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 18:34:02 UTC No. 16624402

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 18:35:44 UTC No. 16624403

>>16624402
> JFK assassination is a hoax
Lmao

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 18:36:49 UTC No. 16624405

>>16624187
cant disprove that you're smart if you never do anything

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 19:46:31 UTC No. 16624436

>>16624352
is there, do you think, the slightest chance that lunar regolith, a substance totally unlike anything found on earth, might cause light to behave in a slightly different way to how it does when reflecting from sand etc on earth?

can you admit of the slightest possibility of this?

also, why do you think it is that he used photos which have been adjusted for greater contrast instead of the original scans? They make the differences seem so much greater than the original frames do.

>>16624399
thats chatgpt. you dont need a license to listen, by the way.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 19:49:13 UTC No. 16624439

>>16621550
>yankee
Correct. They were from Ohio.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 20:04:37 UTC No. 16624456

The pro photographers shown in American Moon need to see this image

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 20:10:06 UTC No. 16624458

And this one.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 20:10:22 UTC No. 16624459

>>16624352
>there are insanely huge drop offs in light in the pics allegedly taken on the moon, those are IMPOSSIBLE on the moon
I'm not really seeing it. Nice low quality photo by the way. What made you decide to use that as an example? Maybe you don't really have any real arguments? Just a thought.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 20:29:51 UTC No. 16624478

>>16624459
notice how sharp the shadows are. guess they moved the spotlight really far away for that one.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 20:36:19 UTC No. 16624481

>>16624478
About 149,600,000km away

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 20:39:10 UTC No. 16624486

>>16624481
i guess so. have you seen any of these panorama sequences they took while on the moon? they are interesting in the context of this dumb shadow thing the hoaxies bring up.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 20:46:19 UTC No. 16624495

>>16624436
>thats chatgpt
Yup and it's correct as always

> you dont need a license to listen, by the way.
true but you said you could TALK TO THEM which ya cant

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 20:49:51 UTC No. 16624499

>>16624306
Lmao so that's what you call it. Very jarring use of punctuation.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 20:51:39 UTC No. 16624501

>>16624495
>which ya cant
why do you say that? ive read lots of people talking about making contact with them.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 20:53:32 UTC No. 16624504

>>16624501
you need an official (((((Permission)))))) just like it says. An amateur license at the very least

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 20:57:48 UTC No. 16624508

>>16624504
>An amateur license at the very least
ooh i see what you mean. yeah, its kind of annoying how the State controls all that. But, on the other hand, if you ever spent time on the unlicensed bands like CB you do come to appreciate the barriers to entry. And anyway, if you actually know what you're doing you can operate and people wont notice if you're not licensed, and, if someone does, if you're nice and respectful, they wont mind.

t.did that plenty.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 23:06:51 UTC No. 16624592

>>16624150
Other non-NASA orbiters have captured the Apollo landing sites, like India's Chandraayan-2 here

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Mar 2025 23:46:06 UTC No. 16624612

>>16621632
Point to the Van Allen Belt?

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 01:14:59 UTC No. 16624661

>>16624612
You can't see the Van Allen belts, they are radiation and magnetic fields, and they are nowhere near the moon, they extend about 1/5th of the way to it

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:13:31 UTC No. 16625108

>>16624508
>>16624504
>>16624436
>>16624399
https://youtu.be/xLt5Vvgc1vA?si=bLeqGQReXrzDVGyE

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:21:43 UTC No. 16625113

The Van Allen belt cope is really funny to me.
As if NASA wasn't aware they exist and can't choose a safe trajectory.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:21:54 UTC No. 16625114

>>16625108
>anyone SS
he's trying to talk to the space nazis in their moon base

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 16:23:15 UTC No. 16625115

>>16625113
its one several dumb points they routinely go to.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:40:52 UTC No. 16625173

this thread should be more than enough evidence that taking a government institution at their word makes you a retard.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:44:36 UTC No. 16625178

>>16624402
Not a single argument found btw.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:50:17 UTC No. 16625186

>>16625173
theres more evidence itt that anyone taking American Moon at it's word makes you a retard.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:56:09 UTC No. 16625194

>>16625186
>evidence
you mean word salad to fuel a decades long narrative.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 17:57:58 UTC No. 16625198

>>16625194
thats not an argument

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 18:05:33 UTC No. 16625207

>>16625198
nixon wagged the moondoggie to divert people's attention away from the vietnam war. with this, it follows that everything else is a post ad-hoc rationalization of this supposedly immensely fortuitous event in recent human history.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 18:14:42 UTC No. 16625211

>>16625207
they landed on the moon. you'll just have to cope with that and carry on having no idea what you're talking about or any good arguments.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 21:54:35 UTC No. 16625381

>>16625211
>they landed on the moon.
source: nasa saying they did.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 22:00:45 UTC No. 16625385

>>16625381
And your source saying they didn't is?

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 22:23:02 UTC No. 16625403

>>16625385
there's no real reason to take them at their word besides faith.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Mar 2025 22:26:30 UTC No. 16625406

>>16625403
So you've proven that it didn't happen personally?
You've conducted experiments and such, yourself?

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 00:29:19 UTC No. 16625472

>>16621386
they did. it is.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 02:54:27 UTC No. 16625547

They had lights on the lunar lander which explains any discrepancy based on angles of shadows

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 12:16:00 UTC No. 16625749

>>16625547
the shadows are fine though. and no, they didn't have lights on the lander. i think it had a strobe for rendezvous with the CSM in orbit.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 17:21:03 UTC No. 16625931

>>16621386
You could probably send those nutcases to the moon themselves and even as they stand on it they would say man has never stood on the moon

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 17:43:36 UTC No. 16625961

>>16621386
Telescope's hacked cuz.

Anonymous at Sat, 22 Mar 2025 17:45:42 UTC No. 16625963

>>16621703
In 1000 years "French" will be a cheeky euphemism for "American", ironically.

Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 12:17:29 UTC No. 16626543

>>16625931
they'd come back and swear it was all done in a studio. Either that or they'd finally accept the landings were real but then the rest of the moonhoax cult would just call them a paid disinfo agent. This just happened when they took some flat earthers to the antarctic. very funny.