Did Man Land On The Moon?

Did man fly to and land on the moon, and return to earth in 1969?

  • Yes, it was on teevee

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • No, it appears to be technically impossible

    Votes: 47 95.9%

  • We went but forgot how (official NASA position)

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Total voters
    49
Rax Moscow

Rax Moscow

Protestant
Heirloom
Looks like we don't have a Fake Moon Landing thread here yet.
There was some great content in the old one.
I'm really looking forward to this 2026 Artemis project where NASA intends to land a negro and a white woman on the moon, for the first time. And then leave them alone there for a week. (That's really the mission).

Here's Yuri Gagarin celebrating being the first person sent on a rocket into outer space. Excited, happy, gregarious, celebrating.
1696591540_gas-kvas-com-p-kartinki-gagarin-27.jpg


The American astronauts, after beating the Soviet Union and returning from a successful moon landing!
1708812743190764.jpg


Then they hopped into this device and were filmed whizzing away back to earth:



To quote W Bush, they're really gonna have to "ratchet up the propaganda" to get people to buy this next moon landing story. I think this February 2024 Odysseus unmanned moon landing here is doing just that.


As it landed, Odysseus “caught a foot in the surface and tipped” said Intuitive Machines CEO Steve Altemus, ending up on its side.

“It really was a magical, magical day,”

During its final descent, Odysseus was supposed to be traveling about 2 mph (3.2 kph) in the vertical direction and 0 mph horizontally. But the data show it was actually moving at roughly 6 mph (10 kph) vertically and 2 mph (3.2 kph) horizontally, Altemus said.
Click to expand...

You see, it's really difficult to come to a full stop in zero gravity. But designing a rocket to propel itself through the heavens for days, pass through the radiation belts, touch down on the moon and then take off again with a tiny spark shooting spring loaded aluminum foil box, is the easy part. Getting it to stop is the hard part.


Just for the record, they are saying:

This is an actual photograph
_132726983_screenshot2024-02-24at00.00.40.png.webp


And this is an artist rendering.
3000.jpg


(It's possible to land unmanned objects on our moon, but it's not possible to tip them back over or take well lit photographs of them in space that don't show any stars but have a perfectly exposed foreground satellite and background planet, or have a device film the descent from the surface of the moon, which they claimed they were going to do here)

During Odysseus’s seven-day mission, which will be fueled by solar power until the landing site moves into earth’s shadow, Nasa hopes to analyse how soil there reacted to the impact of the landing
Click to expand...
lol wut?


An instrument called EagleCam, a cube with cameras designed by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, was supposed to pop off 30 seconds before touchdown to capture pictures of Odysseus’ landing, but the device was deliberately powered off during descent because the navigation system needed to be switched.
Click to expand...

ohhh that makes perfect sense. Darn we almost got photos.

It's even kinda human, look, it dies if it gets too cold lol

eventually it'll fall into a deep cold and then the electronics that we produce just won't survive the deep cold of lunar night. And so, best case scenario, we're looking at another nine to 10 days (of operations)," said Tim Crain, IM's CTO and co-founder.
Click to expand...
The moon has no atmosphere, so the temperature should be the same every night. But somehow it can survive a FEW nights of cold, just not more than about 9 or 10 and then the poor little thing just shivers to death.

Good thing piloting live humans through the radiation of the Van Allen Belts is easier than designing a computer the works in the cold.

It does look like a weird design for something that can only operate upright though. Maybe don't put all the feet on the narrowest wobbly side? Awe, shucks, What do I know about designing rocketships!?!
h5zitwWd43sjfX55CVYbJN-970-80.jpg


I think the point is to get the public acclimated to these CGI renderings which look pretty fake, (and the "real photographs" look even worse so people will tend to prefer the CGI) and get people ready for the fakery they are gonna do for the manned moon trip.
 
I love the "moon buggy"
Apollo15LunarRover.jpg
The umbrella connected back to the earth. It's like a "satellite" (which are just as fake as moon travel.) While bumping over the moon it gave a perfect connection.


This was a prototype with (alleged Nazi lol) Wernher von Braun

news-102815b.jpg

The footage




In their logic: "It looks so fake, that it must be real"

I also love the aluminium foil everywhere. 😂
 
Pretty much the litmus test to determine brainwashed status of normies. The debate with nasa and their fanboys is always the same futile exchange. People have been pointing out flaws since forever and it goes something like this:
-> hundreds of contradictions and impossibilities pointed out
-> one decade later: nasa damage control with after the fact rationalization ('oh we didn't know about van Allen belt I guess we are fine')
-> 'oh yea we lost all data, original footage and technology'
-> 'but we can bounce radio waves on the moon that's proof!' Nevermind that we tested that before ever sending anything to the moon
-> Space rock given to governments are petrified wood
-> 'I would go back in a nano second' - nasa autistic freemason
-> never go back
-> India shows Atari level graphics landing
-> nasa fangirls celebrate

You will never go to the moon. There will never be any space travel for the public. It will always be an eternal promise because it's impossible unless they plug you inside a VR.
 
I had an interesting chat with my boomer left leaning "TV is Gospel" mom yesterday.

We were talking about AI and photoshop, She mentioned how she follows a few UFO and ghost sighting pages, but now they're just full of fakes that get called out in the comments. I pointed out that it's nothing new. People have been making fakes since the dawn of photography, they've just got more sophisticated tools than a saucepan lid and some fishing line these days.

I said, "There are some people who say the moon landing was faked. I'm not saying it was, but by today's standards ,some of the "evidince" looks pretty dodgy. I'm not saying it was fake, but if it ever turns out that it was, I won't be shocked."

Mom says "Yeah I've seen that."

I said that for people of her generation, that would be a big deal if that ever came out. It would change your whole world view.
She says "Exactly... If that was fake, then what else was fake?"

Even my boomer mother who watched the moon landing is not sure if it actually happened.
 
paternos said:
I love the "moon buggy"
View attachment 5530
The umbrella connected back to the earth. It's like a "satellite" (which are just as fake as moon travel.) While bumping over the moon it gave a perfect connection.


This was a prototype with (alleged Nazi lol) Wernher von Braun

View attachment 5531

The footage




In their logic: "It looks so fake, that it must be real"

I also love the aluminium foil everywhere. 😂
Click to expand...


The funniest part of the moon buggy nonsense is that, according to NASA theory, it's 271 degrees F on the moon in sunlight.

None of the thermodynamic explanations of the moon landing make any sense, it's so blatantly ridiculous that even normies will be forced to rethink their position. This is because we all have experience with hot and cold temperatures, and their effect on materials.

For starters:

- All the rubber tires on that buggy would be goo.
- The plastic chairs would look like plastic that came out of a microwave, with such intense radiation from the sun.
- Not a single one of those electrical components on the buggy would function, the wires would fry immediately, and the batteries running the buggy would instantly overload.
- The entire metal frame would probably shift and expand dramatically, unless it is made out of extreme dense alloys. I seriously doubt that little tin rod the satellite is on would be straight after an hour in that kind of sunlight heat.
- Then you have the issue of the camera filming this: how did it stay powered in the extreme radiation bath? How did it's batteries not pop instantly? Because it's wrapped in tinfoil? But if it's not getting any radiation, then it would drop down to -271 degrees and freeze immediately since there is supposedly no air pressure on the moon, which means without radiation you go from extreme heat to extreme cold within a matter of moments.

This isn't even looking at stuff like the dust flying out of the tires in supposedly an environment with no air pressure, or the driver being as stiff as a ken barbie doll. Just in terms of basic thermodynamics, you are looking at sheer absurdity.
 
Samseau said:
according to NASA theory, it's 271 degrees F on the moon in sunlight.

- All the rubber tires on that buggy would be goo. ... plastic chairs would look like plastic that came out of a microwave.
- the wires would fry immediately, and the batteries running the buggy would instantly overload.
- it would drop down to -271 degrees and freeze immediately ... .
- the dust flying out of the tires in supposedly an environment with no air pressure ... .
Click to expand...

My plastic plates in the microwave don't melt or deform either.

Sensitive electronic equipment is insulated.

Like in a thermos, it takes a long time for cameras and equipment to cool off in the vacuum of space.

Dust will spray in a vacuum, but won't float in a cloud, just like the videos in this thread.
 
Uncle Cr33pin said:
Click to expand...

"do you really think this craft is generating enough power to launch?"

Lower gravity on the moon would be at least part of the normie explanation, I imagine.

"if this was 52 years ago - then why hasn’t man stepped foot on the moon again? If you say it’s too expensive or ‘what’s the point’ you are lying to yourself"

It does sound expensive and useless though. Assuming for the sake of argument anyone ever went to the moon back in the 1960s, what would be the point of going again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top