North Korea can't even shoot a missile in 2017

Yeaaaah, that's like saying a child cant operate a stick shift, therefore an adults can't.

And then they did it 5 more times within 3 years, but almost 50 years later no one can even send a camera back to take a decent picture.

(Here's where someone always seems to post the blurry, shitty, fabricated 2009 LRO images. Go ahead, it proves my point for me.)

What about Chang'e 3?

I don't know what claims are made about Chang'e 3 in relation to the Apollo missions, but this is from Wikipedia regarding Chang'e 2:

China's second lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which was launched in 2010 is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres. It claims to have spotted traces of the Apollo landings, though the relevant imagery has not been publicly identified

Of course they haven't been identified...

I see. Thought you just meant the general lunar surface, not the actual sites.

Well, what's wrong with the LRO images then?

The main thing that's wrong with them is that the moon hoax theory claims that the photographs were staged by NASA, shot on earth in a studio, not on the moon. The anomalies with the photos are a main reason people began doubting NASA's claims in the first place, as people began to notice elements like shadows going in different directions, illuminated astronauts that were standing in shadows and should have been dark, the lack of blast crater beneath the lander, and many more.

So for someone who already thinks NASA is full of b.s., one more image from that same government agency isn't going to be very convincing.

But even looking at the images themselves, they don't really show anything. They're indiscernible and contain no detail. The LRO was said to orbit about 70 miles above the moon and this is all we got, which seems very disappointing. Even what are said to be tire tracks in the photos raise more questions, because some of the original Apollo photos show the lunar rover with no tracks in front of or behind it.

1. We can leave, there just isn't a point anymore.
2. Landings were far from perfect. Take Apollo 13.
3. What does isolationist NK have to do with 1960's America?

Agreed.."Houston we have a problem.. they're on to us"

the technology to accomplish such a feat just wasn't there in 1969.

Do you think the government hides its capabilities from the public?

Considering humans can just barely leave orbit now

Money.

the temperatures would be far too extreme for any space suits in the 1960's to adapt with

We have suits on Earth that can withstand the extremes.

And that's assuming humans made it through the radiation belt, which I HIGHLY doubt.

What does your source on the Van Allen Belts state?

The same agencies that came up with the information about the Belts, are the ones that support space travel.

So i'd love to see your argument.

if something seems too good to be true it probably is fake.

I think wheelies are boss, but they are real so are bikes fake?

If we still can't replicate a trip like that in 2017

Money.

you didn't see volcanologists walking inside volcanos in foil suits in the 60's

You don't literally walk inside of a volcano... But here's an article from 1941:

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1941/1941%20-%202756.html

So basically, you're wrong.

Thank you. I feel like the only user around here that thinks the conspiracy isn't did we go to space, but why are we to believe we learned how to use ojr driver and then immediately decided minigolf is the future of space exploration.

The Nazis started the space race really with the first long range liquid fueled rockets.

After WWII the US and Soviets picked up the German scientists who made rocket attacks possible. The V2 developed by the Nazis in 1942 could have reached space but instead they pointed them at London.

Sputnik 1 launched in 1957 and marked the start of the space race proper, strategic military advantage was desired and this new frontier was the prize. Dominance of space would mean the ability to reign down nuclear weapons on the enemy, right?

The Apollo mission consumed around 4% of the federal budget at its peak

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#/media/File%3ANASA_budget_linegraph_BH.PNG

In today's money Apollo cost around $125 Billion with an additional $80 billion for production of the lander and Saturn IV.

Technology has exponentially improved in the decades following but there is not the same incentive to visit the moon as there was when the technology which made it possible was new.

https://www.seeker.com/how-did-1960s-technology-get-us-to-space-1792645403.html

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_644.html

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-history/period-8/apush-1950s-america/a/the-start-of-the-space-race

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race

There were casualties. And near misses like Apollo 13.

The mission avoided major radiation zones and detectors on board measured less than 3 rads for the 3 days trip to the moon. A lethal dose is 300 rads/hr.

One of the most important discoveries made in space was reported by the very first American satellite, Explorer 1, in 1958. It was revealed that several huge layers of radiation particles are trapped by Earth's magnetic field, called the Van Allen radiation belts. This discovery came as a considerable shock as here was a previously unknown but very real peril, which made certain regions of space uninhabitable without a prohibitive weight of shielding. However, it was soon realized that the VARB represented an obstacle to be bypassed, not a complete roadblock. By choosing suitable orbits it was possible to avoid the most intense levels of radiation; and to outward-bound spacecraft the belts were no serious menace because the vehicles passed through them swiftly.

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

Russia had manned orbits of the moon too but their programme failed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_manned_lunar_programs

They did get a rover on the moon in 1969 with subsequent successes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_programme

China has made recent progress with robotic landers on the moon and are launching a sample return mission this year (returning 2kg of material.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang%27e_5

. Kinda, so how did they get it right on their first attempt with no casualties

Lolll

All great points!!

There's another that I find intriguing.

If you watch an ISS mission on youtube the EVAs are so incredibly boring, but this is good because it means they are taking the utmost care and precision undertaking even the simplest of tasks. It clearly illustrates how dangerous the vacuum of space is and how careful they have to be to ensure nothing goes wrong.

Contrast this with the Apollo landings. They're singing songs, kicking rocks, falling over, playing golf, jumping around and ruining (expensive) experiments. If they truly were in the vacuum of space and one puncture to a suit would mean one or both of them wouldn't be returning home, I doubt this is the kind of behaviour they'd be participating in.

People will say, oh they were so thrilled to be on the moon, or that's how they were in those days ... rubbish. It it meant the entire mission would fail and the president would have to report the loss of the crew, there is no way they'd have taken those risks.

They'd have taken tentative, carefully considered steps and actions just like the ISS crew does nearly 50 years later only a few hundred miles above us.

Your points are good, but the ISS betrays the same fakery with the lack of peril and insouciance shown by the crew members. The entire thing could end in a catastrophic fireball at any moment, and any number of problems could arise, but the crew members never get into any trouble that can't be fixed with a simple space walk. They are always smiling, stress-free, playing flutes, guitars, wearing gorilla suits, bouncing around on wires, talking about vague and pointless experiments, and frankly it couldn't be any faker.

Voat.co/v/Nasalies has a great compilation of ISS goofy bullshit and green screen screw-ups.

Any of the recent space footage would be really hard to fake

By the way, just wanted to add that the people telling you that there's no reason to go "back" to the moon, well every space agency including NASA and Russia's Roscosmls disagrees and that's the dumbest concept anyone could ever try to get another person to believe.

There's no reason to go back but there was a reason to go like ten times in a row back then? Such a pathetic logical failure that also directly contradicts what talking heads from NASA and elsewhere are saying to this day.

Most of the time the argument is "Why haven't we been there again?". And the answer to that is, NASA had to cut funding from the frankly ludicrous spending during the '60s, which resulted in von Brauns unrealistic plans being set aside, and the Shuttle took form through Air Force support. NASA would then spend the next 30 years banging their head against a wall.

Admittedly, I know very little of Roscosmos, but they dropped their unfeasible lunar plans either just before of just after NASA made it. They would continue work on Salyut and LEO stuff.

For some reason, every space program says "We want back to the Moon". NASA keeps pushing Orion, which is a dead end project, which is somehow going to build lunar outposts and stage us to Mars in 20-30 years, despite NASA in total having 1/8 the budget of Apollo. It smells of bureaucratic mess and contractors being contractors to me. Nothing here says jack shit about a Moon landing nor a Mars landing. Those are just ideas floated for the future, with no hardware in development.

Roscosmos has even less budget and bolder ambitions, but they don't even have a rocket or hardware to point to. Don't know why so many news sites keep saying that they'll be back to the Moon within 12 years.

The same goes for Elon Musk's plan for Mars colonization: Where's the plan, where's the budget? Building the biggest rocket in history and have it reusable?

A lunar return plan becomes worth considering when they have a solid plan and a reason: Testing hardware for Mars, mining Helium-3 etc. Constellation planned to use the Moon for the former, but that eventually got scrapped since, again, too expensive and nobody saw the point. Best bet for lunar return is probably EM-1, which I think will fly. Second best is probably China and their plans, but I believe they will get cancelled as soon as they see a pricetag.

Well somebody's using their brain. Lot of disinfo agents here. They're just doing their bitch ass jobs, I suppose.

Agreed. I don't understand why people are so quick to defend NASA. I've seen hour long videos jumping from piece of evidence to piece of evidence that all conclude that this was staged.

The debunking claims seem to go after a few of the weaker arguments and then wrap everything together and say "Debunked! Those tin foil hat wearers are crazy"

Like in the Mythbusters episode, look how wildly and definitively they proclaim "TOTALLY BUSTED" and how many times they reiterate this...

https://youtu.be/9TH4BfIwBXs

The US government has had free energy since they stole the information from Nikola Tesla. Theyve had moon bases since at least the 80s.

http://www.lawofone.info/results.php?s=8#3

Maybe the moon landing was faked but only to hide the fact that the military is already way ahead.

Considering humans can just barely leave orbit now, it seems unfathomable.

Not wanting to, and not being able to, are not the same thing. The expense of the moon missions was enormous. Justifying that expense was, and is, the difficult part.

the temperatures would be far too extreme for any space suits in the 1960's to adapt with.

So you say. Can you back that up with an argument as to why it would be impossible?

And that's assuming humans made it through the radiation belt, which I HIGHLY doubt.

This is the part that gets me... you believe there is a radiation belt because the scientists told you there was, but you don't believe the scientists when they tell you it is possible to pass through that belt in relative safety by keeping the exposure time to a minimum.

Why? Why do you only believe some of what they tell you?

If we still can't replicate a trip like that in 2017

Who said we can't?

No reply, I didn't see that coming /s

. Considering humans can just barely leave orbit no

Source?

The moon having no atmosphere, the temperatures would be far too extreme for any space suits in the 1960's to adapt with

I would suggest reading about how temperature works in space

.. And that's assuming humans made it through the radiation belt, which I HIGHLY doubt.

Question: have you ever actually read about these belts or are you regurgitating copypasta?

The average temperature on the Moon (at the equator and mid latitudes) varies from -298 degrees Fahrenheit (-183 degrees Celsius), at night, to 224 degrees Fahrenheit (106 degrees Celsius) during the day. Was there a point you were trying to make?

I made my point.

Let me quote myself:

I would suggest reading about how temperature works in space ,

I missed it.

You're telling me.

Now, go do some proper gown up research and get back to me after you've examined how temperature works in space.

I'm well aware of how temperature works in space.

Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't be so perplexed.

Temperature systems installed in space suits compensate for this.

So what are you so confused about?

And in 1969, the technology for needed temperature systems in said space suits more than likely was not actually there.

So this all hinges on your incredulity? You say it was "more than likely not actually not there" based on nothing.

Think about your vehicle you drive now. If it's newer, the heating and cooling systems work significantly better than they did in vehicles 10 years prior. What's this have to do with anything?

Absolutely nothing. What kind of trash analogy is that?

Human life will probably not be in jeopardy if your car on earth doesn't heat up fast enough on a cold day. Completely different story for a space suit on the moon. Do you understand?

That's why they wore specially designed suits and didn't just hang out in the seat of an Oldsmobile.

Technology was crap in 1969 compared to today,

And? Spit it out son.

and yet there hasn't been any manned missions to the moon since

There were five more after Apollo 11

. And all you hear is "it's not worth it now".

Correct.

.So you're saying you believe jumping around and playing golf were the only important tests to be done on the moon?

No I don't.

Which is good because that's not all they did.

Get real bud. Why hasn't any other nation even attempted it since? Because it's not worth it?

Pretty much.

It's expensive and requires a lot of cooperation, research and development.

The Soviet moon program fell apart because it lacked those.

How about, because it's a suicide mission and it can't be done.

It was done several times.

1969 the US was in the midst of a cold war, so you don't believe they could have lied about the whole thing, having the technology, as sort of a bluff to the Russians, is that out of the realm of possibility to you?

Technically nothing is out of the realm of possibility.

But something being even a sight possibility isn't evidence or even a coherent argument.

Who else has stepped foot on the moon in the last 40 years? Oh right, it's not worth it, right?

Correct.

The mission was complete and researche went in other directions (shuttle, space station etc)

Your points are good, but the ISS betrays the same fakery with the lack of peril and insouciance shown by the crew members. The entire thing could end in a catastrophic fireball at any moment, and any number of problems could arise, but the crew members never get into any trouble that can't be fixed with a simple space walk. They are always smiling, stress-free, playing flutes, guitars, wearing gorilla suits, bouncing around on wires, talking about vague and pointless experiments, and frankly it couldn't be any faker.

Voat.co/v/Nasalies has a great compilation of ISS goofy bullshit and green screen screw-ups.

Any of the recent space footage would be really hard to fake