Y/n?

its turtles all the way down.

creationism and vaccine hysteria should be lumped in with the fake moon landing myth.

when i was a kid it was aliens, bigfoot, and the loch ness monster. honestly those where more entertaining.

>bigfoot
>not real

are JFK, 9/11, and the Moon landings the holy trinity or american conspiracy theories?

9/11 is also super interesting. Global warming hoax aswell

>Sorry, I thought this counted as politics
If the conspiracy is a political issue, it does.

Like Holocaust Revisionism for example.

>Mandela Effect
It was always Sex AND the city. I know 200% for sure. IN the city is the psyop here. There's nothing weird about it.

Frankly, I don't understand what the moon landing signifies in conspiracy theorists' minds.

Like, what kind of mindset do you have to be in where you look at the moon landing and think "egregious abuse of government power"?

it was most definitely faked.

youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4?t=34m4s

the time stamps don't match up either. van allen radiation belt would be a lethal dosage. not to mention the command center rendezvous would be insanely difficult to successfully complete each time. they only talk about the 2 guys but there was a 3rd guy orbiting the moon(remember that the moon is double the size of Russia) in a command center like yeah right.

The U.S is the best country because of our freedom and ease of living, not because of faked moon landings.

read None Dare Call it Conspiracy by Gary Allen. Both the USSR and the USA were essentially a Zionist occupied government controlled by the same individuals from a certain time period.

USA-USSR relations in terms of diplomacy and being polite professional were actually much better for most of the USSR's existence compared to now where the U.S often disrespects and is childish towards them.

>The U.S is the best country because of our freedom and ease of living
youtube.com/watch?v=Rpn0vh2Rj0Y

you're now aware that you've fallen into an abyss of confirmation bias, and are now literally retarded.

youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

it's only Americans who call me retarded when it comes to this topic because you're using your emotions first and logic second.

most people formalize their opinions about what they "should" be right and then find a way to rationalize it. I believe it's called backwards rationalizing, but I'm probably wrong about that.

It's ok 20 years from now I'm sure the documents will be declassified and there will be irrefutable evidence that it was bullshit because by then, someone else, maybe a private space company like SpaceX, or Russia, someone, will go to the moon legitimately, get stranded, and die. Or die from cancer on their way back.

look me up in twenty years so I can call you a useless faggot instead.

There's nothing you can do to change my mind on the matter. I haven't found a single physics professor at any of the campuses I've gone to who could explain all the discrepancies.

people have too much faith in authority, but that doesn't mean you should listen to me either or some random fag on the internet in general. I'm just saying use your brain and try to figure it all out.

Don't think it was faked. If it was, russian scientists would have proved it.

And because America never lies, r-right ?

>theres nothing you can do to change my mind

exactly.

That's a lot of turtles. Why not elephants?

because nobody ever found out when we bombed cambodia, lied about the iraq war, experiment on civilians with LSD, and committed ware crimes in vietnam.

>you can't change my mind because I'm too retarded to understand science and YouTube videos made by basement dwellers truing to poke holes in a very select few out of hundreds of photos are more in line with my understanding

Ftfy

you're an idiot

You forgot Roswell

>the holocaust never happened
>the allies where the bad guys in ww2
>vaccines cause autism
>the roman empire never existed
>white people invented aids
>gmos are evil
>jfk was killed by the cia
>the moon landing was a hoax
>jews did 9/11
>bush did 9/11
>delaware doesnt exist
>bigfoots are real
>aliens abduct people for no reason
>the earth is flat

there, now I'm smarter than all the sheep.

Flat Earth is the most interesting and believable """"conspiracy"""" theory.

Literally everything in that video has been debunked and most stuff in that documentary are flat out lies and bullshit.

rainbows would not curve if the earth was flat

Only if you're the most utterly ignorant of morons

Where is your evidence for that? It's like saying the Mc Donalds sign would not curve if the earth was flat.

>Flat earth believable
>Moon landings were real
Does not compute.

OP is not a faggot

The moon is also flat and just a few thousand meters up from earth.

What if the moon landing happened and the earth is the moon we landed on?????

>gulf of tonkin incident was a false flag
>MKULTRA still exists under the name of project monarch
>pedowood
>CIA killed JFK
>the Clintons have a long string of suspicious deaths behind them

Moon landing is easy to prove really - just send satellite with normal optic to photo/film that part and it's done. Even commercial satellites now are capable to see down to few hundreds meters - see google maps and alike.

> It's like saying the Mc Donalds sign would not curve if the earth was flat.

Nice false equivalency. Go back to grade school or google how rainbows work

>sand people did 9/11

It's been done

Yeah I don't believe it was fake, I meant the theories are cool.

wtf where are the stars?

yea but why couldn't they just put the reflector on there with a satellite?

>just send satellite with normal optic to photo/film that part and it's done. Even commercial satellites now are capable to see down to few hundreds meters - see google maps and alike.

hurrr

how is the moon landing being fake 'paranormal?' you fucking retard

tfw none of these get the same attention as ZOMG THEY LIED ABOUT WASTING BILLIONS TO SEND 3 GUYS TO THE MOON.

skyandtelescope.com/observing/celestial-objects-to-watch/moon/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/

NASA seems pretty confident. confident enough to tell everyone where to look.

You can't see shit. An Moon doesn't have the same atmosphere/gravitations as Earth and everything should be seen more closely and more clear. See pics from maps - you can easily see cars and people to some detail. Here you can see only some dots, while equipment left, spacecraft and moon car(s}, should be the size of car at least.

To me, MAN did not go to the moon, an unmanned proto-rover most likely landed and planted the flag and reflector.

jfk was assassinated by the kgb in retaliation for our humiliation of the ussr at the end of the cuban missile crisis.

see

moon landing and flat earth are disinformation designed to make more plausible theories seem insane because they are associated by the term.

one of the evidences often stated is that we can't safely navigate van-allen belts - but all the Apollo astronauts suffered some level of radiation beyond safe limits. why would they irradiate their pilots if they didnt go to space?

exactly. we can see them on earth through miles of atmosphere but not on an atmosphere less moon, right.
the moon never ever has turned it's backside to us in all of human recorded history, a phenomenon of unparalleled synchronicity unmatched in nature or machinery. it travels on a set path and never deviates from it. completely unexplainable in the heliocentric model.

Do you realize how close a satellite orbits earth and how far it is to the moon? Do you also realize that the detailed pictures of google earth are taken with a FUCKING AIRPLANE? Fuck man, how stupid can you get?

how do you know that?

do you have pictures of the moon from 10,000 years ago?

You can see the stars mid day? Cool story bro
>he doesn't understand orbits
Kek

Listen retard. Go ahead and go out at night and try to take a picture of the stars with your cell phone camera. Guess what's going to happen? The sky will be pitch black in your photo.

how can anyone be stupid enough to think the earth is flat you dont need to go to space to prove its round

The picture was also taken on the sunny side of the moon, washes out the stars completely. But, tards gonna tard

Nothing. Universal acceleration pushes the Earth upward at 9.8mps, which accounts for gravity as well.

Now, about the reflector on the Moon, if you're going to accept that as true, then that also disproves Flat Earth theory, however, since the moon and sun are discs in FET.

the image is focused on the bright surface of the moon which greatly contrasts with space, which greatly contrasts with the stars.

the focus is on the moon so you don't see the stars.

see: contrast

you can barely see stars in the city at night because of light pollution. The filming area was drenched in flood lights and the camera exposure could not pick up the stars.

HURR DURR

>We collect it via airplane and satellite, but also just about any way you can imagine getting a camera above the Earth's surface: hot air balloons, model airplanes - even kites. The traditional aerial survey involves mounting a special gyroscopic, stabilized camera in the belly of an airplane and flying it at an elevation of between 15,000 feet and 30,000 feet, depending on the resolution of imagery you're interested in. As the plane takes a predefined route over the desired area, it forms a series of parallel lines with about 40 percent overlap between lines and 60 percent overlap in the direction of flight. This overlap of images is what provides us with enough detail to remove distortions caused by the varying shape of the Earth's surface.'

because the only ones that like elephants are poo in loos

It's just hilarious how you keep proving me right. Again, you're arguing using emotion because you didn't even click my link(your mind and feelings are made up on the matter), if you did, then you would know that it was made by a guy who won film awards for it. Not some "random YouTube basement dweller" and now we have some scientists who are exposing the lies further, of course most of them aren't from the U.S for obvious reasons.
You can't see objects on the moon with any telescope that exists right now.

>Not even the most powerful telescopes ever made are able to see these objects. The flag on the moon is 125cm (4 feet) long. You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see it. The largest telescope now is the Keck Telescope in Hawaii at 10 meters in diameter.

telescopesplus.com/blogs/helpful-information/18965572-can-you-see-objects-left-behind-on-the-moon

Further proof you're only using emotion or else you wouldn't push out garbage like that.

...

> Israel is actually a pretty decent country
> But the Jews are painting it as bad!

>the theory that the moon landing was faked is cool

yeah im sure if it wasn't for all those jews israel would look a lot better

> its cool

aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

It's fake as fuck this guy already proved it. Go ahead and pretend you know more than him.

is the conspiretard containment board

it's supposed to stop you retards from shitting up Cred Forums and other boards with dozens of garbage threads like this one

'muh moonlanding hoax' was confirmed as a KGB active measure decades ago by archival material from a famous defected KGB archivist

if you believe in that one, you most likely believe in other famous conspiracy theories spread by the KGB or the CIA during the Cold War for various political and security reasons

>>Conclusion: These images were probably taken on Earth in a dome-shaped studio location where movable panorama backgrounds were installed, and even treated afterwards by further adjustment in a photographic lab.
ironically you're using a conspiracy to attempt to thwart another conspiracy. The truth is that this one started from people using their brains. I do believe in the KGB planting propaganda in universities and all but that has nothing to do with this.

Moon landing was fake. Also, the earth is most likely flat, and heliocentrism is a false model

It is a fun theory, until you realize how stupid you'd have to be to buy into it.

Look at their favorite "shadows are not parallel in the pictures, so there must have been a nearby light source" nonsense You have to believe things like perspective does not exist to give it any credence.

But perspective does exist, you would expect parallel lines to converge as they go away from the viewer, and if non-parallel shadows were actually being created by a nearby light source, they would DIVERGE intot he distance, not converge.

All of this is fucking obvious, but moon-bats still tout the shadows as evidence of their idiot claims.

we went there but we weren't alone

>A good conspiracy should be able to stand up without just completely ignoring evidence which refutes it.

That lets out almost all of them.

It was easier to go to the moon than to just film it.
Don't forget how primitive film-making was in the 60s. youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

>I'm not a fan of the "moon landing was fake" theories because it's too obviously false.
>Now me, I'm a fan of the ... Flat Earth Theory.

I sense a disconnect here. The Apollo missions relied on orbiting the Earth before heading to the Moon, and sent back pictures that show the globe.

Beat me to it!

Perhaps I can suggest a compromise; pic related.

Do you know how rainbows work?? Wtf... It's literally a circle of ROYGBIV. Roundness of earth has nothing to do with it.

>You can't see objects on the moon with any telescope that exists right now.

You can, however, with probes sent to orbit or fly-by the Moon by non-US agencies.

If you want to deny these exist, you are getting off into the weeds of denying evidence as opposed to accounting for it with a different theory.

Ha, Moon-UFOs are the same indistinct blurs as Earth ones.

>Can't see Ireland because it's covered in what's probably rain cloud
WHAT A SURPRISE

The shape of the Earth doesn't actually matter as long as its mass stays the same. You could still orbit a flat Earth.

Put more money in the Leprechaun holes, sir.

But your pictures would look different -- plus if you orbit the Earth due to it's mass, the whole "universal acceleration" shit goes away.

Orbital mechanics are dependant of gravitational theory. If gravitational theory is true, then a flat earth is impossible because it would collapse into a sphere, and if it didn't somehow everything on it would fall towards the centre.

WE

WUZ

STeiNS

AND

SHEEEIIIT

>no argument refutes flat earth theory
so there's a ring of sentry guards around the entire Antarctic edge of the Earth?

do me a favour m80

The Flat-Earthers are one of the only groups of people I wouldn't object to having a mass culling performed on them.

False, take a basic orbital mechanics class.

That horizon on the moon is like 100 feet lol. Is the moon so small you can only see 100 feet in front of you while ur standing on it?

Inb4 yes lmfao

God damn it 'Murican education.

>Is the moon so small you can only see 100 feet in front of you while ur standing on it?
mfw burger fat has never seen a hill before.

That law is an approximation. The amount of gravity at different points on the surface of the earth varies slightly.

It varies even more so on the moon. Enough in fact to make the apollo orbits difficult to predict. This was the reason Neil Armstrong was disorientated as they approached the surface, because they came down at a different location than they expected due to gravitational anomalies.

Area 51 aliens and shieet.

Right, I'm sure that's a hill. Astronaut Just standing flat while the floor never changes height. But it's a hill

Flat-earth theory is useful for tricking people who are into conspiracy theories just to be edgy into revealing how stupid they are

>while the floor never changes height
>floors can have heights > 0cm now
That's some straight up nigger speak right there.

It's not really an approximation by itself. It just assumes that masses are condensed to single dots. They of course aren't, but on the scale of orbits they might as well be. So it can be used to approximate orbits quite accurately. And I don't know anything about apollo 11 having such problems, but I seriously doubt they would've been results of gravitational differences.

You're realizing how the moon landing was bullshit so you're going through defense mechanisms. Why would that be a hill if the astronaut is standing on a flat surface while the land he's standing on never goes up in altitude. If you argue against this than ur just in denial

>but on the scale of orbits they might as well be.
What? When the mass of the object you are orbiting is spread out over 99.9% of the area of the orbit, how is the shape of the item not going to make a difference? How does the "scale of orbits" mean gravity can be approximated to dots? The planets and moons are almost the same size as the orbit in these cases.

>And I don't know anything about apollo 11 having such problems, but I seriously doubt they would've been results of gravitational differences.
It's literally what it was. NASA documented the gravitational anomalies on earlier missions. It's the same reason the LEM module crashed onto the surface after jettisoning it instead of remaining in a stable orbit, because the gravitational anomalies made the orbit unstable. Look it up if you don't believe me.

It's really not. It's so easily disprovable.

>Why would that be a hill if the astronaut is standing on a flat surface while the land he's standing on never goes up in altitude.
Because the top of a hill can be flat.

Nothing is falsifiable you nigger, don't you know what the problem of induction is? The problem with the flat earth theory is that it takes all the bits of evidence that are explained by a spherical earth and then create a whole theory for each of them, meaning you have a bunch of theories each with one bit of evidence instead of all those pieces being evidence for a spherical earth.

Why can't you see anything past the hill if you're at the top of the hill

in this case he's not at the top of the hill. The top of the hill is blocking the horizon.

idk, wheres the land beyond the hill in this image?
wait a minute.......... holy shit, the earth landing was fake! earth doesnt exist because you cant see past a hill!

OP here

Why are some of you insulting me, I don't believe any of this shit I just think it's interesting :'^(

Yeah, you're probably right. The acceleration due to gravity would not be a constant like it is with a round planet in low orbits. High orbits would still behave the same an there would still probably be stable low orbits as well, but they would be elliptical.

>The acceleration due to gravity would not be a constant like it is with a round planet in low orbits.
It's not that constant there either, it fluctuates a bit. pic related.

Holy shit rip earth

He can't cuz the land never raises

Not the same angle

>He can't cuz the land never raises
How do you know?

Holographic Moon theory is pretty neat. Basically the idea is that a holographic image of an undisturbed lunar surface is being projected over the lunar surface in order to keep us from seeing what kind of works are going on up there from Earths surface. There is a guy on youtube that has a video up that he has captured from his backyard setup showing rippling distortions washing over the lunar surface.
>>>said video
youtu.be/_3axPn65MGM

>Galt's Gulch

Because look at the landmarks. Look at the shadows.

The ground is flat and not raising like a hill, to the point that you can't see what's over it.

>Because look at the landmarks. Look at the shadows.
How do those tell you it's not a hill?

Dude are u really that blind that u can't tell In those 100 feet that it's not raising enough to be the top of a hill? It's going straight ahead. Not up. It goes straight ahead to 100 feet and then that's the horizon

Earth no Flat:
youtube.com/watch?v=JRbBW2iBjuo

I'm not disbelieving you, I'm asking how you can tell.

The earth is flat. Prove me wrong.

Protip: You can't.

American government (probably NRO) has some nxtlvl spaceplane tech they're keeping secret.

wanna know my favorite conspiracy theory?

Because the landmarks don't go "up". They just go straight and disappear after about 100 feet. By landmarks I mean the markings on the land. The astronaut is to scale to the markings, so just multiply the markings in your head based on the astronauts size and it's like 100 feet. That's less than a football field, no hill would be that steep. Especially since the land markings don't even look like they're going up

not that blurry

That there's a connection between Schrodiner's Cat and the Kabbah.

youtube.com/watch?v=KGukAoiGhZU

well too bad. not tellin'

That the bible was a book foretelling the future instead of a historical recount. And Trump is Jesus going up against the Jewish establishment. The Jews will kill Trump and his spirit will be resurrected through the spirit of the race war.

pretty sure some govt. spooks would kill me if i did. it's that crazy.

What if the moon landing is part of the Mandela effect. We are just in a universe now where it did happen.

Can't tell i believe conspiracies, maybe only very few and realistic ones. But is something fun about reading proofs when it makes sense.

...

I love everything about aliens, monsters (cryptozoology) etc... Basically X-Files stuff.

Van Allen belt radiation could be easily mitigated.
Alpha - the outer hull is impossible to breach
Beta - the multiple hulls and the wires are impossible to breach
Gamma - hulls, wires, air and space between PLUS lead linings and other linings of dense materials (or water layers) can easily reduce (using Fallout terms for simplicity) 1000rads/s to less than 1 rad a second.

The issue with the Van Allen idea is that gamma radiation is easily mitigated with techniques we continue to use today. While we cannot remove the risk entirely, gamma radiation acts upon the inverse square law and is significantly effected by materials, with higher density materials being more effective.

You probably only would've needed a few thousand pounds or kilos of lead to reduce rad levels by 75%+, up to 99%, and water cooling/heating systems that, if they were present under the hull in the form of wires, would've reduced the radiation dosage massively. All of these with an inverse square law to aid them.

The turtle's name is like Zartan or some shit. I used to argue on the flat earth society's boards until I realised how stupid it was to try

>Now me, I'm a fan of the Mandela Effect and Flat Earth Theory

this bait