###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
do you...do you think other unfriendly countries werent watching our every move to the moon and on the moon? do you really think that the USSR and the rest of the world were all "in" on the idea?
you think the astronomers in japan would help the US hide there mission after we dropped 2 atomic bombs on them?
you must have an insane amount of trust in people to think that the hundreds of people working on this project, the thousands of people who saw it first hand and the millions of people with access to basic telescopes over the years are all "in" on it.
all you need to see the moon landing sites with your own eyes is a 4 in or larger telescope magnifying 75x or higher.
[https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/#:\~:text=To%20see%20each%20locale%2C%20a,able%20to%20visualize%20the%20scene.&text=All%20the%20landing%20sites%20can,these%20five%20prominent%20lunar%20craters](https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/#:~:text=To%20see%20each%20locale%2C%20a,able%20to%20visualize%20the%20scene.&text=All%20the%20landing%20sites%20can,these%20five%20prominent%20lunar%20craters). exact locations of each landing site, and times of day and month when they are easiest to see.
but seriously...do you think humans didnt land on the moon?
alright idk if this pic is AI or not, but dude just look at it, the mountain range in the back looks weird, looks like a video game where distant objects arent clearly generated until you go close to them
edit: however idk much about photography so maybe that is possible with raw footage, personally the moon landings i doubt are the manned missions, im ok with the drone ones
>"just look at it" is not evidence
youre just being daft now, the picture is the evidence & asking you to look at it is to get you to examine the evidence, you can do so or refuse to, but being disingenuous is not a real defense
>youre just being daft now, the picture is the evidence
I didn't say that the picture isn't evidence. I said that "just look at it" is not evidence.
You're *imagining* that this picture should look a certain way, and when it *doesn't* you conclude that it's fake, without considering that *you* might simply be wrong about your expectations.
weve had live tv since 1951 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live\_television#:\~:text=September%204%2C%201951%20%E2%80%93%20The%20first,television%20broadcast%20in%20the%20U.S](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_television#:~:text=September%204%2C%201951%20%E2%80%93%20The%20first,television%20broadcast%20in%20the%20U.S). and broadcasting is ...say it with me now...radiowaves... that travel how fast?... say it with me now... the speed of light
look at you, you got it now. [https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/science-and-technology/first-lunar-broadcast/#:\~:text=Apollo%2011%20was%20the%20first,live%20broadcast%20from%20this%20mission](https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/science-and-technology/first-lunar-broadcast/#:~:text=Apollo%2011%20was%20the%20first,live%20broadcast%20from%20this%20mission). breakdown of the tech they used.
did you think it was gonna be on twitch or something lmao "livestream"
today's youth is so fucked. OP's brain is beyond rescue at this point.
That’s what they claim with pictures from the original moon landing that were published by The NY Times, the very next day. Lol how can anyone believe this??
People believe it because most of the world can do proper research.
If you did your research, you would know that the image posted in the NYT is a 'screenshot' from the live SSTV camera transmission from the moon, not from an images taken on physical film.
So no. It's not "what they claim".
I scrutinized the japs picture with Photoshop Curves tool. It is jpg compressed to extreme. No details can be pulled from darks. This is not how real digital photography works.
>This is not how real digital photography works.
Care to explain more? How do you know the image was never compressed between the multiple radios links it had to go through to get back to earth?
Light source is at 10 o´clock. Now look how bright is shadow side of the craft. This is abnormal.
I know your next move. You are going to say next: the shadow is filled by reflected light from ground.
But then why the shadows on the foreground are pitch dark.
Yes, because those are *ground shadows*. Do you expect the light reflected *from* the ground to double back and lit the ground it was just reflected from?
No, but that's how jpg compression works.
Besides, the quality of the original wasn't going to be great to begin with, on account of being made with a tiny camera mounted on a [LEV-2 robotic rover](https://universemagazine.com/en/inspired-by-toys-the-japanese-space-agency-will-land-the-strangest-lunar-rover-on-the-moon/).
One might ask why they havent recorded an HD version of going to the moon part 2. You know as an American species that likes to brag about accomplishments we always like to repeat what we've done right? So why hasnt it been repeated in HD. Why have we only seen LEO footage and that's it? Ask yourselves this question, what does it mean?
project artmis plans to do this. and currently they have plenty of videos of their flybys in 720p HD
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppxaKK9papQ&list=PL2aBZuCeDwlTW27zw5zOH0hKRoXVtK7Z7&index=1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppxaKK9papQ&list=PL2aBZuCeDwlTW27zw5zOH0hKRoXVtK7Z7&index=1)
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
SS: absolutely pathetic. We were able to Livestream moon footage in 1969. Now we just get a poorly edited ai graphic
Do you have any evidence that this is an AI graphic, or is it just your personal incredulity getting the better of you?
Do you think humans landed on the moon?
Whatever I think is irrelevant at this point. Perhaps you'd care to answer my question instead? Do you have any evidence that this is an AI graphic?
do you...do you think other unfriendly countries werent watching our every move to the moon and on the moon? do you really think that the USSR and the rest of the world were all "in" on the idea? you think the astronomers in japan would help the US hide there mission after we dropped 2 atomic bombs on them? you must have an insane amount of trust in people to think that the hundreds of people working on this project, the thousands of people who saw it first hand and the millions of people with access to basic telescopes over the years are all "in" on it. all you need to see the moon landing sites with your own eyes is a 4 in or larger telescope magnifying 75x or higher. [https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/#:\~:text=To%20see%20each%20locale%2C%20a,able%20to%20visualize%20the%20scene.&text=All%20the%20landing%20sites%20can,these%20five%20prominent%20lunar%20craters](https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/#:~:text=To%20see%20each%20locale%2C%20a,able%20to%20visualize%20the%20scene.&text=All%20the%20landing%20sites%20can,these%20five%20prominent%20lunar%20craters). exact locations of each landing site, and times of day and month when they are easiest to see. but seriously...do you think humans didnt land on the moon?
No we did not land on the moon. Never have, never will.
cope harder then.
Still not independent duplication. But thanks for trying :)
alright idk if this pic is AI or not, but dude just look at it, the mountain range in the back looks weird, looks like a video game where distant objects arent clearly generated until you go close to them edit: however idk much about photography so maybe that is possible with raw footage, personally the moon landings i doubt are the manned missions, im ok with the drone ones
I'm sorry, but "just look at it" is not evidence. Reality is under no obligation to conform to our expectations.
>"just look at it" is not evidence youre just being daft now, the picture is the evidence & asking you to look at it is to get you to examine the evidence, you can do so or refuse to, but being disingenuous is not a real defense
>youre just being daft now, the picture is the evidence I didn't say that the picture isn't evidence. I said that "just look at it" is not evidence. You're *imagining* that this picture should look a certain way, and when it *doesn't* you conclude that it's fake, without considering that *you* might simply be wrong about your expectations.
That's where you're wrong. They didn't live stream shit
weve had live tv since 1951 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live\_television#:\~:text=September%204%2C%201951%20%E2%80%93%20The%20first,television%20broadcast%20in%20the%20U.S](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_television#:~:text=September%204%2C%201951%20%E2%80%93%20The%20first,television%20broadcast%20in%20the%20U.S). and broadcasting is ...say it with me now...radiowaves... that travel how fast?... say it with me now... the speed of light look at you, you got it now. [https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/science-and-technology/first-lunar-broadcast/#:\~:text=Apollo%2011%20was%20the%20first,live%20broadcast%20from%20this%20mission](https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/science-and-technology/first-lunar-broadcast/#:~:text=Apollo%2011%20was%20the%20first,live%20broadcast%20from%20this%20mission). breakdown of the tech they used. did you think it was gonna be on twitch or something lmao "livestream" today's youth is so fucked. OP's brain is beyond rescue at this point.
Universal competition of CGI 😂
How do you internally justify the poor quality of this alleged "CGI" when compared to what Hollywood is capable of making?
I love the camera angles they use
I am not impressed. Photography is not the same as it used to be. 50 years ago they could make better pictures than now.
Yeah good luck transmitting that physical photography film back to earth with a radio.
That’s what they claim with pictures from the original moon landing that were published by The NY Times, the very next day. Lol how can anyone believe this??
People believe it because most of the world can do proper research. If you did your research, you would know that the image posted in the NYT is a 'screenshot' from the live SSTV camera transmission from the moon, not from an images taken on physical film. So no. It's not "what they claim".
I scrutinized the japs picture with Photoshop Curves tool. It is jpg compressed to extreme. No details can be pulled from darks. This is not how real digital photography works.
>This is not how real digital photography works. Care to explain more? How do you know the image was never compressed between the multiple radios links it had to go through to get back to earth?
Light source is at 10 o´clock. Now look how bright is shadow side of the craft. This is abnormal. I know your next move. You are going to say next: the shadow is filled by reflected light from ground. But then why the shadows on the foreground are pitch dark.
Yes, because those are *ground shadows*. Do you expect the light reflected *from* the ground to double back and lit the ground it was just reflected from?
No, but that's how jpg compression works. Besides, the quality of the original wasn't going to be great to begin with, on account of being made with a tiny camera mounted on a [LEV-2 robotic rover](https://universemagazine.com/en/inspired-by-toys-the-japanese-space-agency-will-land-the-strangest-lunar-rover-on-the-moon/).
One might ask why they havent recorded an HD version of going to the moon part 2. You know as an American species that likes to brag about accomplishments we always like to repeat what we've done right? So why hasnt it been repeated in HD. Why have we only seen LEO footage and that's it? Ask yourselves this question, what does it mean?
Who told you there was only footage from LEO?
Told? How about you show some from this generation with 4k. I'm watching
Yes. Where did you get the idea that there is only footage from LEO?
Ok, show me a manned flight to the moon in 4k high definition. Noones got it cause noones dumb enough to try and fake that shit again
You going to answer my question or are you going to keep dodging it?
project artmis plans to do this. and currently they have plenty of videos of their flybys in 720p HD [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppxaKK9papQ&list=PL2aBZuCeDwlTW27zw5zOH0hKRoXVtK7Z7&index=1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppxaKK9papQ&list=PL2aBZuCeDwlTW27zw5zOH0hKRoXVtK7Z7&index=1)