patrick.net

That's some shit one of my wee ones would have me do. While the other one yells, my turn! My Turn! Only to run away when I turn to him.

richwicks says

cisTits says

Patrick says

Moon landings were in the 80s?

I think the point is that faking the moon landings would be pretty fucking hard with late 1960's technology.

The videos and the photographs have been around forever. On top of that, a lot of stuff was left behind, it's not like they returned the moon buggies for example, they are still there. So are human bags of shit, literally.

In order to have falsified the moon landing, it would have taken an ENORMOUS amount of cooperation between Europe, then Russia, and now China and India. The sites can be (relatively) trivially inspected at this point. Although Space 1999 seemed plausible at the...

The moon is close enough - with a powerful enough telescope, you can see the abandoned machinery, etc. There's a reason the moon landings were on the earthside/nearside - that's so that continuous telemetry could be maintained.

For all the fake moon landings fucks - there's an easy way to prove it - Just buy a 400-1000X objective telescope and scope out the landing sites. These fucks who will finance flat earthers to construct a craptastick "rocket" to prove the earth is flat won't spend $5K for a telescope that will shatter their delusions.

stereotomy says

Just buy a 400-1000X objective telescope and scope out the landing sites.

At its closest, the moon is over 225,000 miles away. At that distance it seems one could not discern a football stadium let alone a landing site. Is there a link to any website that displays pictures of landing sites taken by folks using 1000x scopes?

stereotomy says

The moon is close enough - with a powerful enough telescope, you can see the abandoned machinery, etc. There's a reason the moon landings were on the earthside/nearside - that's so that continuous telemetry could be maintained.

For all the fake moon landings fucks - there's an easy way to prove it - Just buy a 400-1000X objective telescope and scope out the landing sites. These fucks who will finance flat earthers to construct a craptastick "rocket" to prove the earth is flat won't spend $5K for a telescope that will shatter their delusions.

Due to optical diffraction limit (lambda / D; wavelength of light divided by lens diameter), even without taking into account the changing distortions due to atmosphere, a theoretically ideal telescope on earth would have to be 200 meters in lens diameter to differentiate two points on the moon 1 meter apart. i.e. if you want to see the lander at 1 inch per pixel resolution (to have an image of the lunar lander as about 60 pixels across in width), you'd have to have a telescope lens 7874 meters across, i.e. a lens nearly 5 miles in diameter!

All they have ever shown of the 'moon landing sites' are blurry UV spectrum photos, no inconvenient detail. They have had high resolution satellites examining the moon. There are examiners who have compared spliced moon photos where the alleged 'footprints' suddenly disappear between frames. It is clear they only want certain things revealed and, as usual, faked others.

That, when they have several high resolution satellites orbiting earth that can resolve people through the atmosphere.

Also stereotomy says

For all the fake moon landings fucks - there's an easy way to prove it - Just buy a 400-1000X objective telescope and scope out the landing sites. These fucks who will finance flat earthers to construct a craptastick "rocket" to prove the earth is flat won't spend $5K for a telescope that will shatter their delusions.

@stereotomy - yes, a typical telescope cannot image the moon landings. If you think about it, imagine how likely it is for a photon that hit say, a moonbuggy, hitting the Earth? @Reality is correct, it's something to do with arc length, as well as a bunch of other optical bullshit I don't understand.

There are some interesting ideas though. It's POSSIBLE to have a telescope that is distributed across a nation, where the separate inputs can be combined to make something like a telescope that is basically the size of the nation, just receives less photons, so longer exposure and this is made further complicated by atmospheric distortion.

We can't image the landing sites from Earth, but India can image it, Israel can image it, Russia can, China can, the EU can. It would be the biggest hoax in all of history, and I just can't believe that. If it was, it means EVERYTHING I think I understand is possible to be false. I'd be questioning if the world is a sphere probably if the moon landing was shown to be a fake. It's just too much to wrap my mind around. It would change my entire understanding of geopolitics. It would mean we have had a one world government since 1969 and before.

I can't directly know there was a moon landing, but if there wasn't, that would wipe out my entire life's understanding of many things. I seriously don't think I could accept it.

richwicks says

I'd be questioning if the world is a sphere probably if the moon landing was shown to be a fake.

It was just misdirection and slight of hand. Just because the moon landing was a propaganda campaign, doesn't change Science, it should reinforce your understanding of it.
If you can reconcile that we didn't land on the moon in a maned space craft, then took off from the moon and made a return trip. On technology less than a 0086 Computer, then you can understand why we're throwing padded goo balls, and parachute toys on a one way trip to Mars. Understand that the Moon landing was almost a whole decade before the Calculator was invented. But the space program did propel technology ahead by decades if not a Century. It was those efforts that gave us the Transistor, Main Frame Computers, and the Calculator.

richwicks says

. It would change my entire understanding of geopolitics. It would mean we have had a one world government since 1969 and before.

We've had a one world government ever since the Holy Alliance, NATO and the UN was just modernization of the Congress of Verona, formed in 1822.

Another good argument for testosterone inhibitors.

Those were rubber movie props. You can see the axe blades fluttering in the wind and from them being moved.

Tenpoundbass says

Those were rubber movie props. You can see the axe blades fluttering in the wind and from them being moved.

How dare you assassinate my plagiarized meme.

Girl got enthusiasm.

There was a wine bottle in that vid?

That is hilarious!

cisTits says

Good reference to Futurama, Season 1, Episode 2.

Swamp Gas

Onvacation says

Swamp Gas

They should be collecting and selling that for energy!

Patrick says

Onvacation says

Swamp Gas

They should be collecting and selling that for energy!

They do at the local landfill.

Awesome musicbox!

Mockingbird in Safeway parking lot was imitating the sound of squeaking shopping cart wheels. I wonder if that will score him a mate.

Patrick says

Onvacation says

Swamp Gas

They should be collecting and selling that for energy!

Pretty sure that was a vault lid for an in-ground transformer or electric switch....

BUSTED