The Achievements of the USSR

This all sounds gloriously inspiring, but it isn't supported by any sources or citations. I want to believe, though.

How much of this is legit? Any proof that it is?

Other urls found in this thread:,_docking,_and_extraction,_docking,_and_extraction#Procedure

You can literally google all of the space accomplishments of the USSR yourself. I hate tankies but the Soviets undeniably won the space race.

Same, dude. I hate tankies as well, but even they occasionally have good points. For instance, I wholeheartedly agree that the kulaks deserved worse. The actual kulaks, not the innocents that got inadvertently caught in Stalin's mad crossfire.

The article has more to do with Soviet achievement than the space race, though. Did you read the whole thing?

so they're like the daleks who wanted to conquer the world but couldn't get up the stairs?

you must be delusional to think the USSR isnt full of achievements.
Tho it all did start going downhill when stagnation hit

Consider that almost of all positive things said about the USSR are blatant lies and contain only enough truth to make it all seem believable.

The reality of the USSR?

Nothing more needs be said.

retarded post



this, soviet "socialism" is literally national socialism and to celebrate any of their accomplishments is celebrating the accomplishments of the NSDAP

rly made me think

eat nails

it achieved Gorbachev and Yeltsin


their greatest achievement was 61 million dead

i would like to add, AND a failed economy, a repressive system left in shambles.
but it's communism, what did you expect.


ooh, don't let your eats be tainted by the terrible truth, komrade !
deny reality all the way !
to be honest, the soviet union would have probably killed you too for being a dissident and a homosexual.
go to north korea, it's very close to what the USSR was.

oh ok


yeah, but the USA still exists.


Everything there is official common knowledge.
Literally everyone accepts the fact that Yuri Gagarin was first in space.

Your an idiot if you think the USSR won the space race.
The running joke about the US winning the space race was that they won it the Soviet way. NASA was a monolithic publicly funded agency. By contrast the USSR had several competing bureaus.

How did the US win the space race?

Landed on the moon and put a flag on it, for the first time an earth creature had stepped foot on another planet. I do think it's a bit ironic considering it was done through a government funded program and not private capitalism though.

probes on venus


But the USSR went to space, first time an Earth creature has ever left Earth. Why are we defining victory in the space race as "going to the moon"?

Logically you'd think the space race would mean the race to get into space.



Soviets were first to the moon, with LUNOHOD,
besides Americans offered Soviets to go together, Soviets refused, so it was a symbolic victory.

oh, and first moon landing was most probably a hoax


Wow, leftcomms and ultralefts really have gone off the deep end around here haven't they

This is probably the most literal "moving the goalposts" thing that has ever happened in US foreign relations. Especially considering that the whole "space race" was a flimsy cover for "who can get their transcontinental missiles working first"



Nobody cares. Come back when you touch another celestial body and make multiple trips back and forth.

Why was the moon the finish line? The USSR with a far smaller budget was devloping useful capabilities like space stations, robotics and probes that can land on Venus. The USA went right to landing men on the moon then did no follow up. The USA were behind the USSR in space station technology so couldn't build a space station on the moon at the time while the USSR could if it had something like the Saturn V in the 1980's yet the USA tossed the Saturn V into the trash bin because it only saw the moon as one giant PR stunt.

typical Holla Forumstard "argumentation": find one weak spot in many of your opponents points and attack it while completely ignoring everything else to achieve a series of mental mini victories
but i'll disappoint you: there's serious research on the effects of spaceflight/zero gravity and other shit on women to see if childbearing is possible. but a blockhead like you can only spew a "muh" meme and keep believing in your headcanon "'murica won the space race" to jack off to more of your mental mini victories even though it's bullshit (why do you think the whole moon conquest even happened?)
oh and btw: we have 2017 and at least 10 other countries could easily go on the moon if they wanted. but they have better things to do than throwing money away on irrelevant things ('murica as well since they haven't tried for almost 50 years and recently NASA officially stated that they won't try again)

Russians rushed everything and as a result they were ahead for some time, but suffered colossal failures, attempt after attempt, which ultimately killed their space program. Astronauts were very pressured to put their lives at risk or lose their ranks, in contrast, the US space program was ridden with delays.
Not for long, NASA already has a contract with Spacex and the first astronauts will be delivered next year.

Didn't Trump said he wanted a man on Mars by 2030? Anyway, several private companies are planning to go to Mars, SpaceX being one of the most probable candidates for putting a man on Mars in the next decade or two.

It isn't according to the modern scientific definition, but according to the original on definition of "wandering object in the sky" it is

lol butthurt fag

except they immediately gave up only because of the "moon landing" and focused on other space stuff that ended up in making Mir
did you even read what i wrote?

nice comeback

Are you implying it didn't happen? kek
Yeah, and I don't see what was your point, it's clear after a few decades many countries will eventually have developed the technology to get to the moon, but none of them are actively pursuing going to Mars, except maybe China.
Space exploration brings innovation, many products we use daily are a result of the space age, so it's not a waste on money on irrelevant things.

Btw, some interesting facts, the N1 rocket explosion is one of the biggest non nuclear explosions ever to happen, equivalent to 1000 tons of TNT.

So am I, user. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. SpaceX/etc would only put a man on Mars if the government paid for it and there's no way that's going to happen. Maybe China could pull it off by 2040 or so.

the first one was most obviously a hoax
because you obviously didn't read
what fucking Mars? where the did i ever mentioned Mars? even the part you quoted implies moon. stop moving the goalposts

Those are the most probable candidates.

Previous to the moon landing the US apollo program had already orbited the moon twice, with apollo 8 and apollo 10, why would they put up a hoax if the second manned mission to the moon after apollo 11 was conducted 4 months later? Specially after seeing how well the Russians were faring.

All nine apollo missions ended up successfully, despite problems, like the explosion of the oxygen tank on apollo 13. The same can't be said about USSR, which suffered failure after failure, killing many in the process.

I don't think an agency capable of 3 orbit missions around the moon and 6 manned moon landings needs to fake their first landing, doesn't makes sense to me. It would make more sense to say it was all fake, but then there's all the evidence and pictures from satellites orbiting the moon.

There's nothing to do on the moon, maybe mining helium-3, but a long time will pass until fusion is fully developed, if it is doable. Mars is the next big thing.

to make Russians stop immediately (which they did) and then calmly forge everything like putting a flag so they can provide "proofs"
more died on the opposite side
orbiting is child's play compared to the actual landing and then getting off of the moon
makes perfect sense for politics tho

You'll just move goalposts again, "my mom doesn't count" and so on.

The Russians did stop 17 days before your supposed "fake landing" was aired on TV, because their rocket fucking exploded on July 3 1969, dumbass, why the need to air a moon landing a couple of weeks after your competition has blown to pieces? It took fucking 18 months for the soviets to rebuild the launch pad.
Not if you take into account people other than cosmonauts who died in rocket and missile related incidents like explosions.
No they didn't, the program was cancelled in 74, after many failures.
Again, there's lots of proof, including pictures from satellites orbiting the moon from independent countries.
Read again, the russian moon program was a smouldering hole in the ground when the apollo 11 mission aired, why the need for a fake landing when their competition was still recovering pieces from their rockets?

Also, since the explosion of the N1 (second attempt) rocket was so fucking huge (technically the largest in space history, even though 85% of the fuel didn't explode), the US knew immediately what had happened thanks to spy satellites, they knew the USSR had literally blown their chance of getting to the moon and that it would take them at least a year to recover (the third attempt, also a failure, was conducted 2 years after the second failure, after the first man walked on the moon)

After the fourth consecutive failure in 1972 they just gave up, although there were plans for a fifth launch it was cancelled. It would've been laughable to see them blow up for the fifth time in a row tho.

and? you honestly think that would stop them from continuing if 'murica didn't claim victory first?
soviets could send a human to the moon a lot earlier but they weren't sure if they could bring him back so they didn't
because they didn't care any more about time and later about the program itself. use your brain
except they did. the N1 rocket was already made so they kept doing it for development and testing but really only Korolev kept the project in one piece. without him they pretty much stopped caring about it after the "moon landing" was announced
yeah, yeah. wonderful proofs indeed. totally not possible to forge

again: propaganda. July 3 and july 20 are not far apart. perfect salt for fresh wound

You said the first landing was fake, the second landing took place 4 months after, while the soviets were still recovering from disaster. Why use a fake landing, then land for real when your adversary is still rebuilding his launching pad? At this point you're just spewing contradicting information to patch your arguments. If the other 5 moon landings were real, why the first one wasn't according to you? Just to put salt in the wound?
That's why they failed four times in a row from 69 to 72?
Nobody changed the goalposts, I said rushing things killed many people, you said that more (without specifying) died on the opposite side. Non-cosmonauts are people too. Just because a couple more astronauts died doesn't means you can just sweep all those soviet workers and scientists who died in rocket explosions under a rug. You are the one changing the goalposts, selecting only the cosmonauts instead of the entire number of people who died as a result of soviet failures, and now you're just projecting on me.
You would believe the earth is flat if it was beneficial for your ideology.
That's why they tried two more times? After Korolev died they kept on trying, but without his know-how and the fact that the project was rushed and under-funded the results were catastrophic.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the N1 was destroyed in each and every attempt, and it was rebuilt every time, so I'd say they cared, even after the US announced they had put a men on the moon, they build a fucking new rocket, only to see it fail, and then another, and then another would've been built, but the project was cancelled in 74, so the 5th attempt was not conducted.
Yeah, let's risk our credibility by creating a fake landing now that out competition is blown to pieces just to rub it on their faces, despite the fact that we have 5 more missions planned.

This is your brain on idpol.

you know who took credit

btw there still are a few slave labour camps in russia that are even worse than the worst sweatshops in china

so that's not even the actual accomplishments of the scientists, but the simple fact that they were scientists, what exactly are you claiming here? All those jews were scientific illiterate humanities-fags publishing other people's shit? that they didn't even know what they were doing in the lab?
Not to mention that the Gulags ended with Khrushev in the 50s so did the jews just keep publishing 20 year old scientific discoveries of prisoners? and when they ran out did they just quit? Did the soviet government black-list all those brilliant scientist-prisoners from doing science forever after they were released so the ethnic Russian numbers would remain down? are the Jews stealing other people's autism level tests too?
this entire thing is fucking stupid.

It's Holla Forums what the fuck did you expect, a reality shattering scientific discovery?


Come again?

ML's have a peculiar libidinal investment in machinery.

Well it makes sense considering how a lot of ML countries were underdeveloped shitholes so propaganda would emphasizes the new technologies to show how far they have come.

Stop kink shaming. Its perfectly acceptable to fuck tractors and iron foundries. You've just be influenced by bourgeois notions of sexuality.

you didn't even bother reading. again
next thing you'll say is that a janitor died because he slipped on the flood in the NASA HQ so he counts. the whole point was about space related people
i'd believe anything that has actual, undeniable proofs. your link has none. all the photos were taken long after things happened and radio transmissions are not a proof in any way
again: they didn't care. there was no glory in it, no media victory, no laurels, nothing. and since they already had the stuff bought and a whole program running, they decided to keep going for research and development purposes only
the fact that 4 rockets failed in a row sounds fishy on its own

He's just asspained because if women can into space then that means that he'll have to start competing with space chads, and he's already outclassed by the ones on Earth

The 20th century is over arguing about the space race is passe. Beauty of space exploration in the future when we reach Civ 1 is that it will be a collaborative effort amongst all nations. It will probably be the thing that brings about socialist globalization if you really think about it.

we should turn all the "space race" memes into the win for Europe since ESA landed on a comet

Posting here so I don't have to start a new thread: Does anyone have the webm of this video?

Also who else here /ParentiSquad/

he's bretty gud

forgot to remove sage as name after doing an impolite sage in another thread

Whatever floats your boat man.

there was no one at the time to actually watch what they were doing in the space and the only reliable proof - original tapes - conveniently "disappeared"
reeks of bullshit from a kilometre
and btw, in the link you've provided:
truly the proofest of proofs

What? It was transmitted live for everyone to see, the tapes contained the raw format and were only recorded in case the live transmission failed, in order to display them afterwards, so no footage was lost, only the quality diminished. Erasing the tapes by accident only meant the raw data was lost, so the quality of the footage we have nowadays is a a bit worse than the raw footage in the tapes due the scan conversion carried in order to be televised.

Despite those tapes there are kilometers of high quality film footage from many of the missions.

Yeah, strictly speaking reflectors do not prove man was on the moon, they could've sent an unmanned robot to put those reflectors there. But reflectors are not the only proof, for example, this picture of film that was taken from the apollo 17 compared to the picture of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. You can see the tracks on the moon surface on the original film are identical to those obtained with a modern satellite. There's also this other picture, comparing the footage obtained by the Apollo 15 mission and a Japanese probe footage of the same hill where the lunar module landed.

Strictly speaking, tracks on the surface don't prove man was on the moon, they could've sent robots to leave instruments, reflectors and foot paths in there and record everything on earth. It all depends on how far you're willing to go to refute the proofs.

I can keep showing you more and more proof. I think AUDI is going to send a robot on the moon that will land near the apollo 17, one of their goals it to prove that man landed on the moon, so yeah, not that there isn't enough proof already.

do you even know what was transmitted? montaged records
do you even know how it was transmitted? the signal went to Australia and was shown on a TV that had a camera in front of it, which then sent the video to north America
do you even know that NASA officially stated that the original taped just disappeared?
nobody until 2000 (at least that's the official info) paid interest in those tapes their explanation? they recorded something else on these tapes because they had a tape shortage. this is THE worst, least believable excuse they could possibly use
posting Apollo 15 and 17 that happened over 2 years later
you've proven that you have no proof. kudos to you


You have a source for that?
I know how it was transmitted, far better than you actually, since you're completely misinformed about the technology used in the missions. I'm also an EE, so I have a background on digital and analog electronic systems.
If you read the technical specs, the Apollo camera operated at 10fps and with lower scan lines (scan lines are the electron beam passes required to form a complete image on a cathode ray tube), this is because sending 30fps footage at 525 lines back to earth would've taken too much bandwidth and compromised the telemetry systems, so the camera operated at 10fps and 320 lines, this meant that plugging that signal to a normal TV (30fps and 525 lines) would've resulted in a scrambled, flashy mess, so a rudimentary "converter" was designed. At that time digital video converters with the processing power required to convert a video signal into other didn't exist, everything was analog, hell, a modern (smart) washing machine beats the hell out of the apollo 11 in terms of processing power. This converter consisted on what you are saying, a camera pointing to a monitor, but not a simple monitor, it was designed to operate with 320 lines and the monitor was made with a long dissipation time phosphor coating, so that that switching between photograms was smoother, that's also why images from the mission appear ghostly, since fast movements took time to dissipate in the phosphor.
This is the detailed spec sheet of the converter, as you can see, even though the diagram looks fancy, it's just a camera (broadcast camera) pointed at a monitor (slow scan kinescope)
So yeah, you just described how the converter worked and tried to use it as proof of the footage being fake. You clearly don't know why this was done.

Also, it was recorded in Australia because the signal can't travel though the earth, so many stations around the globe are required to get the signal as the earth spins around, NASA used a big fleet of planes with antennas (picture related), flying in the same paths around the world, to get signals back to the ground stations.
I know that, but again, the original tapes contained the raw footage, so the only difference is the quality lost from the conversion. Also the tapes weren't cheap VHS tapes (which by the way wasn't even invented by that time) or something like that, they were huge rolls of magnetic tape (picture related) which were very expensive and meant to be reused many times over.
Again, those tapes were meant to be reused.
How so? Memory was a luxury in that era, it's not like nowadays where we take it for granted. Nowadays you can store weeks of video in a single flash drive, in the late 60's and early 70's the biggest hard drive you could get was only 5 or so MB and they would cost thousands of dollars, writing speeds were also laughable, so enormous rolls of tape on fridge sized machines were the only storage option. You can imagine the huge amount of data an organization like NASA would need to store and process, reusing tapes was very common, and with many people questioning NASA's funding by that time there was no money to spare.

Btw, the dog survived for a few hours before dying of panic and overheating due to failure in the life support system after the module failed to separate from the boosted and since heat can only dissipate via radiation in a vacuum. This was confirmed by the scientists who worked on the project.

Here are pictures of the apollo 11 landing site taken by a satellite, you can even see the foot tracks on the dusty and abrasive moon surface.

Here's some raw footage captured by the film cameras on board. You can see how the many foot tracks on the film at around 17 minutes are show in the satellite images.

Here you can see more footage of the crew inside the spacecraft and on the moon. It would be quite difficult to fake the lack of gravity.

Here's even more footage of the astronauts in earth, the rocket, footage recorded by the astronauts in the cabin with a camera flying around like at 10:49 There's also footage recorded by pilot Michael Collins (13:00 and 13:37) )while Aldrin and Armstrong were on the moon and he was in the lunar module.

OP here.

I already know the USSR won the space race, that's common knowledge to anyone who isn't a 🍔burger🍔tard. So you guys can shut the fuck up about the space race now. Christ's sake, it's getting out of control.

What I wanted to know was how verifiable the other bits of information in that article were besides the ones that had to do with the space race, i.e. national literacy, public education, healthcare, etc. Did any of you actually read the fucking article besides the space race shit??

literally watch the fucking videos
tl;dr. i can google too
yeah, right
also i saw all the footage and that's the exact reason i don't believe it
you couldn't even post a decent footage without throwing in montaged records from different missions

Your source is your subjective impression that the videos are fake? Could you at least point out something in those videos that makes you think they are fake?
What about the high quality pictures and the videos filmed on the moon and board by the astronauts? Are they fake too?
What? no footage was lost you idiot, how many times do I have to explain this to you? The only footage lost was the RAW FOOTAGE contained in the tapes, the footage is still conserved, but in a post-processed, slightly lower quality format. The first generation copies from apollo's 11 mission all the way to the 17th mission are in NASA Johnson Space Center's Informational Resources Directorate's video vault in Houston, so NO FOOTAGE WAS LOST.

Nobody cared about the raw footage until they thought better quality footage could be obtained from the raw footage tapes with modern digital processing techniques.
"The search was sparked when several still photographs appeared in the late-1990s that showed the superior-looking raw SSTV transmission on ground station monitors. The research team conducted a multi-year investigation in the hopes of finding the most pristine and usable versions of the moonwalk. If the original SSTV format tapes were to be found, more modern digital technology could make a higher-quality conversion, yielding better images than those originally seen."

Yeah, if you can only store 15 minutes of data in each tape and you have to record years and years of combined telemetry data for the next missions it makes sense to reuse the tapes. By the way, NASA never officially confirmed erasing the tapes, they just stated it as a possibility.
Again, memory was a luxury, in fact BBC deleted lots of episodes and films for similar reasons, many of which will not be seen again because nobody copied them, unlike the case of apollo 11, in which all footage was conserved in a lower quality format.

Was the BBC trying to hide something? Maybe extraterrestrial proof? Is your tin foil hat thick enough?

Yeah, probably the NASA has a subsection destined to fake satellite pictures in order to confirm their narrative.

I'm not arguing about who won the space race, I'm arguing about whether the moon landing was fake or not.
Here's the entire EVA footage from the slow scan cam, the same you say was lost.
Here's the entire footage of the 16mm film cameras
Here all practically all photos from all the Apollo missions, including the Apollo 11, including pictures which were not published because they were blurry or other reasons.

Can you disprove any of that footage?

That still has to do with the space race.

I don't fucking care about the space race. Christ on a sandwich. If you're not going to contribute to verifying anything else in the initial article, then SHUT UP AND FUCK OFF. GOD.

Are you italian by any chance?

Capitalism: 6 million
Communism: gay

There are no stars in any of these pictures



So they are fatter than America? And your proud of that?

Nope, they didn't have obesity epidemics


Neither there are stars on the pictures of the other missions, were they fake too? Or did they decide to remove the stars in all pictures and film for consistency? Come on

The moon has no atmosphere, the solar radiation is much higher than on earth, the light of stars dwindles in comparison to that of the sun reflecting off the moon's surface. As a result, the exposure in the pictures is set very short, so the light of stars has no time to expose the film on the cameras.

The same happens with the ISS' pictures despite pictures and video being taken from above the earth's atmosphere. Stars only show at night when the exposure rate is longer.

Maybe the ISS is fake too.

This thread is dead anyways. If they could send rockets into space in some decades I don't doubt significant advances were made in other fields, increasing the quality of life of the soviets who didn't starved in the initial stages or went to gulags. Survivor bias is probably a factor to take into account.

t. american

America didn't really acquire an obesity epidemic until after the USSR disbanded, and calorie intake tanked for them. Also a minor correction needs to be make. The USSR produced roughly 3500 calories per person daily. It's impossible to know how much people were really eating, however if there was never an obesity epidemic in the USSR, then we can assume that people had enough and stored the rest.

You guys have been lied to by Soviet Space Program who are trying to cover up the fact that the Earth is flat. Ever wonder why they didn't let anyone cross Antarctica?

Why do Airplanes not have to constantly dip their noes down when they are flying?

The calorie data comes from a book by economic historian Robert C. Allen called Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution [1]. The author used the UN's methodology of calculating calorie availability which isn't necessarily the same thing as calorie consumption from 1885 to 1989. However, that level of calorie production combined with Soviet price policy made it so that starving and hunger were eliminated in the USSR after WW2. The only exception was a brief famine around 1947 in Moldova and Southwest Ukraine. The first available data from outside observers begins in 1992 [2]. I multiplied the calorie counts by the population size to come up with 2891.7 calories per person for 1992. Thats a shortfall of about 500 which seems consistent with the economic and social decline[3] between 89 and 92 and suggests Allen's numbers are probably reliable.
Modern Cuba is similar, they have a very high level of calorie production(~3400), but actual consumption patterns are harder to decipher.
You have to do a weighted average. Add all the regions populations for 1992 up then take the percentage of one region(Russia's was 51.09%) and multiply it by that regions calorie availability. Add them all up when you're done. A few different sources had slightly different info on population. The bigger the population, the lower the calorie count and vice versa.


no, you idiot. it's not about what the videos show. all of them could be faked easily (as was proven many times, 4ex: Myth Busters) but about the fact that all the later missions were documented a lot better, including 3rd party, and all we have from Apollo 11 is a bunch of shit quality videos. and if you believe in pictures then you're a double idiot
what a surprise…
again, we're talking about NASA and 'murica. comparing BBC's budget to theirs is fucking retarded
not as thick as your skull apparently
again: check the source of these satellite photos. when were they taken, when were they shown to public etc
but can you prove any of that footage?

Did you watch that Mythbusters episode? Mythbusters' conclusion was quite the contrary, they concluded the moon landing was indeed real and could've not been faked.
The oscillation of the flag in a vacuum, the way the astronauts jump and move on a reduced gravity environment… Those things can't be faked, even if you reduce the speed of the camera to make it look moon-like, you can calculate the astronauts' trajectory and force needed to make those jumps and movements on earth, resulting in abnormal forces. They would've needed bungee cords or something like that, and editing that footage in the time where digital video processing was not available would've been impossible.
Yeah, because at the time there wasn't any way of digitally converting the raw footage, so an increase in quality would've not been feasible until many years later.
Yeah, let's discard all that high quality film and pictures because I think it's fake. How are then the pictures and videos of the apollo 11 mission so similar to those of the next missions? Nobody had been on the moon before, how did they know what the surface was composed of, or the texture of the dust. If the pictures of the apollo 11 were indeed fake one would suspect they would be noticeably different from pictures taken during the following missions, did they fake all the pictures of the next missions to make them look like their first guess? What about the video? Did they edit it, frame by frame? In an era were special effects was all made using models?
At the time the tapes were supposedly reused NASA had suffered a massive budget cut, when they went to the moon in 1969 they had half the budget compared to 4 years before. The original purpose of the tapes wasn't to store the video, but rather serve as a backup in case the live transmission failed.
They were taken by NASA, but implying NASA faked the apollo 11 landing and then the satellite pictures many years later involves lots of people keeping their mouths shut.
Wow, great argument, much convinced! Usually I take insults as irrefutable proof, but do you care enlighten me on what makes you think those pictures and film videos are fake? Faking those pictures would've taken intricate replicas on earth and deciding what the lunar surface would look and behave like before having actually seen it, how do you explain the Apollo 11 pictures looking so similar to those on the next missions. Also the rock samples, all 22kg of them that the Apollo 11 brought back, would've needed to be fabricated and replaced afterwards by the real samples.

You are just repeating the same shit all over without answering any of my questions. Come back when you have arguments.

So, to recapitulate all your posts, despite all the previous missions that NASA conducted to prepare for a landing on the moon, you think the Apollo 11 landing was faked to make the soviets stop in their efforts to get to the moon, and to throw salt, despite the fact that the soviet N1 rocket destined to make that happen exploded some weeks before and was widely known, then, only 4 months later, when the soviets where still gathering chunks of their rocket, NASA got their shit together and went to the moon for real, and took pictures and video footage almost identical to that of the Apollo 11 (also matching rock samples), despite the fact that if the Apollo 11 landing was fake they would have no way to know how the soil would behave or what it would be composed of.
You also don't mention your theory about what the Apollo 11 did during the supposed several hours it was on the moon Âżorbit around the moon hoping not to be sighted or detected? ÂżDespite Doppler shifts in the frequency of transmission that could've been detected by several independent observatories?
If the Apollo 11 did orbit around the moon instead of landing Âżhow did the reflectors end up there? ÂżA second unmanned rocket was launched and a robot left it there?
You mention the lack of the original tapes as evidence of the landing, despite those tapes not being meant for long term storage, but as a backup for a live transmission system, and despite post-proceed copies off the footage being widely available.
You also claim the film videos and pictures were fake, without using any argument, and despite being no digital way of fabricating that high quality footage.
You also claim the recent NASA LRO satellite images of the moon are fabricated, so that NASA can continue its narrative.

If the exposure time of the cameras was high enough to how the stars everything else in the picture would be blindingly bright; since you have a relatively close object that is very bright due to the reflected light from the sun and a bunch of really dim light sources hundreds of light years away. You can either show the objects in a regular lighting and have the stars be invisible, or you can show the stars in a regular light and have the objects be nothing but a white blob. The pictures you see from, say, the Hubble telescope have extremely long exposure times in order to show all the stars.
All these arguments that the moon landing was a hoax are built on faulty logic and have been debunked extensively for years. The moon landing was real.
That said, the moon landing was a stupid prestige project that spent an absurd amount of resources to accomplish very little. It was a PR stunt, nothing more. The technology to actually do infrastructure projects on the moon and actually make something useful out of it wouldn't be there until decades later, and considering the US funding for NASA was cut the moment they had proved their point, they obviously weren't interested in that.

did you?
they literally proven that everything could be faked. and with their small budget on top of that
except they can. feel free to google the calculations or do it on your own
because none of these prove shit and there's no more evidence of the whole thing
if you used your brain you could answer this very easily
can't even buy ice cream with these, right?
sure sure. nobody would ever think about analyzing the videos or anything, right? that's so very not scientific. better just erase THESE tapes of all else. not the later, less important missions but these specifically
oh, yeah, right. PROBABLY erased
no, you do enlighten me on what makes you think that these are true
surface? samples? give me a lunar probe and i'll make you a perfect replica

the Apollo was there obviously. maybe even the crew was there. they did what Apollo 10 did and came back
no, i want a definitive, undeniable proof which doesn't exist. all could be done in the studio, the few independent observations are worth shit, (the rest comes from NASA, wew), your reflectors are also worth shit and…that's all
even if it was real, i wouldn't believe this level of proof

I digress, the tech developed during that period brought many new products and materials to the market and the research done covered lots of fields, engineering, physics, statistics, medicine… We are still benefiting from that nowadays.

Wow, great answer.
Because you don't answer them.
You said the following missions were real, how did they then obtained images during the apollo 11 mission that look identical to those of the next mission? Considering the only probes to ever land on the moon didn't have any way to return film pictures I'd say it's very unlikely those first high quality pictures are fake. Any argument other than "you would know if you wer smart lul" bullshit?
So you say they're fake, but you're not willing to give me a single point? And you still you want me to think this is all not your ideological bullshit talking?
I have given you tons of proof, reflectors, satellite pictures, pictures from inside and outside the lunar module, high quality video footage of the astronauts on the moon and in space, floating in 0G. You will just keep saying everything is fake, that the reflectors don't prove someone put them there, the pictures are faked, that the satellite images are faked by NASA to keep their narrative decades later.
The probes did not reveal the abrasive and sticky nature of the lunar dust, which was only discovered with the Apollo missions and which posed a threat to the spacesuits as later discovered by the astronauts.
Except no lunar probe returned samples from the moon. Only the apollo missions did. You can't "fake" a replica of moon samples unless you can replicate it to the atomic level.

Lets remember that the apollo 10 did not only orbit the moon, the lunar module was detached and brought only 15km from the surface, but without landing, everything went perfectly. So the next logical step was to actually land with the apollo 11. Why you think the Apollo 11 didn't land at that time but the apollo 12 did only 4 months later is beyond me.
In order to "fool" independent radio trackers the apollo 11 would've had to remain stationary to avoid Doppler shift, which would reveal the module had not landed and it was in fact still orbiting at a very high speed. Also, data and footage would've needed to be emitted from the Apollo down to earth, which would require lots of memory which was nonexistent by that time in a format that could've been carried on the apollo 11.

Kant would be proud

I guess this conversation is pointless, only time will prove you an idiot, if refuting all those heaps of evidence and presenting your pathetic version of what happened hasn't already done that.

Of course, but that was due to the whole space program, which the USSR was at the forefront of, not the moon landing. The fact that the US hasn't done anything on the moon beyond sending a few probes is a testament to that. If the US had any intention of using the moon landings for anything other than waving their dicks around, then they would have begun developing infrastucture there afterwards, either a science station or some sort of mining operation. Instead they went to the moon and then did absolutely nothing with it.

i gave you answers earlier. you ignoring them doesn't mean that they weren't written
see? already told you that
if you can't figure out how this could be done with a probe then you' are indeed an idiot. a child could figure that out
no, user, you say that they were true. i want decent proof
let's see:
shit, not a proof (even your sauce said so)
shit, not a proof. NASA satellites don't count
shit, not a proof. pictures could be easily faked (once again: Mythbusters could do better)
shit, not a proof. the videos don't show anything decent (but Apollo 12 has plenty of decent footage. what a coincidence)
except for the part when they had plenty of contraptions to do so
quote tiem:
Moon rocks on Earth come from three sources: those collected by the US Apollo manned lunar landings from 1969 to 1972; samples returned by three Soviet Luna unmanned probes in the 1970s; and rocks that were ejected naturally from the lunar surface by cratering events and subsequently fell to Earth as lunar meteorites
reading sure is hard
then why did Apollo 10 probe not land? i'll tell you why: they weren't sure if they won't lost it. and if there was crew on the deck and shit happened, it would be THE worst PR for entire 'murica, pointed out for all future generations. it was safer to first do the unmanned landing and then try with humans. this is the only logical order to do things
don't worry about Doppler effect. whatever the module actually did will always remain a mystery. all according to plan. radio waves were fun to play when i was 14
don't worry about memory either. tapes are a brilliant way to record lots of data and were not that expensive, unless you wanted to record (unless you're a TV station with not NASA budget and you want to record hundreds of hours of material instead of a few and don't have a military technology behind you that surpasses the public one by a decade)
the weight or dimensions weren't even a problem for their mission. all could be adjusted
i'm asking for a decent proof. you give some half-assed ones, which doesn't surprise me because they deliberately didn't make too much evidence. propaganda works better on public
more like grains

Are you retarded? Before the Apollo program no lunar samples existed on earth (except lunar rocks from meteorites with different composition fue the fact they've been on earth for so long). So the 22kg of samples brought back by the apollo 11 are either fake (which many tests have proven they aren't) or real, meaning that either a manned mission collected those rocks, or that a secret lunar probe we don't know about landed on the moon, collected those samples, and brought them back to earth as a way of covering their asses in an staged moon landing scenario, which seems very unlikely and pretty retarded.

Because the lunar module hadn't been fully tested by that time, apollo 10 was never intended to land, in fact it didn't have enough fuel to do so because it wasn't planned. The apollo 10 mission was carried to see if the lunar module could work properly, undock and dock again to the command service module, test maneuvers and so on.
The apollo 11 had the processing power of a washing machine, all the calculations, adjustments and maneuvers were carried by the pilots. Controlling spacecrafts on the moon is quite hard because there's a 2 to 3 second delay.
You can't just claim to have launched a rocket to the moon and leave untied cues like that, any soviet station could've picked that up, which they did. They can contrast the apollo 11 claims with the frequency shift in the transmission caused by the doppler effect, along the fact that you would need either a fixed emitting station on the moon or a satellite which would follow the trajectory of the moon, which would be impossible to orbit.
I'm having trouble finding sources because they're all in Russian, but the soviets did in fact track the Apollo missions, they would've known.
No, TV stations used Kinescopes, which is basically a projector pointed at a camera. Magnetic tapes didn't have enough capacity until late 60's and the machines used to read them were still huge.
Yeah, the military had it's own tape production facility with engineers and scientist working on it. No, those machines were bought from companies like IBM, NASA didn't come up with the technology.
Check the dimensions of the machines in the video avobe, try to fit that into a lunar module.

you win da cookie! wasn't that hard, right?
and it didn't even need to be a secret one, just the regular one during the Apollo 11 mission. anyway i proved your statement wrong
and that's why they went for a full, safe test with Apollo 11. and in case of things going south it's safer to explain: "hey, we found out some problems with the lunar module and won't do the moon landing today. sorry, folks" than kill 3 astronauts (assuming that they actually went there) while everyone's watching
if we're talking about soviets, their sources would be the closest to the proof that all of this happened. but there's none. no 3rd party from soviets who could see the most out of everyone else
that's like…no problem at all
but you do realize that we're talking about the latest of 60's right? you know, the time when they had enough capacity
every military technology is bought from 3rd parties and then usually branded top secret and kept hidden for years
not only it's fucking nothing but it's also "to be used on earth" kind of big machine. things can actually be made compact

The full, safe test was the apollo 10, where they did everything right, except landing, which wasn't planned for that mission. Once they made sure the lunar module could undock, fly around, and dock again they were reasonably certain that a lunar landing could be achieved in the following mission, apollo 11. Hell, even the apollo 9 mission had made such tests, except for the descent rehearsal maneuver.
Nixon had a speech prepared in case the astronauts died, but I guess it's pointless to tell you this, since you'll think it's a fake story to give more credibility to the "supposed" moon landing.
That nearly happened during the Apollo 13, where one of the oxygen tanks exploded and they didn't land on the moon as a result, they were lucky to survive.
The fact that no soviet sources disproved the fact is either due soviet incompetence or because it actually happened.
Hopefully it will be proven with independent satellite images soon enough:
Show me the documents where NASA or the military bought the patents.
Transistor technology was just being developed, so not really, apollo's memory still used magnetic core memory. The capacity I was referring to is still laughable, the 3 hours of footage emitted would've required many rolls. And even if they could be made compact, those machines used around 2kW of power for some reason.

and did happen with the ground tests with Apollo 1

except it wasn't. the full safe test would be an experimental landing because otherwise how can they be 100% sure that they can actually pull it back up?
or because nothing happened. there's also this possibility that can't get to your thick head
again: or proven false. you sound like some NASA shill
it's widely known that this kind of shit is bought from scientists all around the world and used in all kind of warfare vehicles. like certain processors to name one
that didn't stop them (or Apollo 12) from recording

You seem to miss an important point, an unmanned lunar landing would've required a control system totally different from the manual controls used in the next missions, and would've served of little practical use for the missions carried with manual controls, since they would be left untested. The radio signals used for control and telemetry would've been noticeably different from the manned missions if the spacecraft had been remotely controlled. Besides, landing an unmanned lunar module on the moon would've been a great achievement for the US, so I don't know why they would hide that and fake a manned landing only to land for real 4 months later while knowing the soviets' rocket had blown into pieces. Also, if the space module was unmanned, but it was publicly stated as manned from the beginning, how would've the US explained there was nobody there in case of catastrophic failure?
You calculate the energy required to escape the moon's gravitational field (which isn't much btw compared to earth) and from that you calculate the fuel you need + a safety margin. If the docking and undocking and the rocket motors work and no failures are detected that's basically it, and that was tested on the apollo 9 and 10 missions. Risk is unavoidable, they couldn't be 100% sure, no matter how many tests where conducted, the apollo 13 is proof of that. Even if there had been an unmanned mission to avoid risks there wouldn't be any guarantees the next missions were going to succeed.
I tend to believe in the simplest, most rational explanation and with the most evidence. Landing on the moon seems simpler than faking the whole thing without anyone noticing and cover up what happened to this day using unmmaned probes.
Yeah, NASA and Soros pay me 0.1€ per hour to keep the truth hidden, the earth is actually flat but we don't want anyone to know.

The soviets did in fact track the apollo missions, they had special stations built to do so, as this magazine points out:
Here's the translation on a forum:

Faking everything while the USSR had it's dishes pointed at the apollo missions since 68 would've been impossible, unless the soviets where totally incompetent, which they weren't.

There's actually less footage from the apollo 12 than there is from the apollo 11, since the color camera of the apollo 12 was damaged after it was pointed directly at the sun. The rest of the footage was recorded in 16mm film, like in the apollo 11 mission.
Again, here's the 16mm film footage from apollo 11:
And here's the 16mm film footage from apollo 12:

Now, this is the footage from apollo 11 EVA that was transmitted to earth:
And here's the footage from apolo 12 EVA that was transmitted to earth: (it has some visual aids and simulations at times)
Here's when the camera was damaged:

Here's the report about the apollo 12 landing covering for the fact the camera had failed. I find this video very interesting because of the effort they put into recreating the scene with a poorly made "simulation" with actors in poorly made space suits. If there ever was a fake footage it would probably look like that.

As you can see, the quality of the films is quite good in both missions, because film had been used for decades, while the quality of the transmitted video is pretty bad in both cases (the apollo 11 actually looks better despite restoring the footage from the converted sources and not the original tapes)

no, you seem to still not get what a full test is about. what's the point of testing a different module if it was meant to be rebuilt. how are you supposed to test if the system works properly that way?
also the module had a way to be remotely controlled. it had a few computer systems that not only took care of everything like start, landing etc but were able to handle the entire mission by themselves with astronauts doing pretty much nothing. not adding the possibility to remotely control the module would be a completely retarded approach
no it wouldn't because Russians already landed an unmanned vehicle there
theory != real life. you don't do a test, then change variables and assume that everything will be fine. this is anti-science
there was this guy once:
too bad that every scientists will agree that his explanation is dumb as fuck
what evidence?
from earth. they should have a satelite or something
said guy who mocked them for crashing four N1 rockets
but the video itself shows a lot more, it was monitored better, has more evidence that someone was actually there and the whole thing doesn't look shady to begin with

A full test is about testing in the same conditions before the next step, not use a totally different control system which didn't exist at the time.
16 tests during 8 years were conducted for the Saturn rockets and reentry of the command module before allowing a man on the Saturn 5
7 tests were conducted to test the abort system
4 tests were conducted with apollo 7 to 10 before the landing, with apollo 8 achieving lunar orbit, apollo 9 testing the lunar module in orbit, propulsion, rendezvous and docking, apollo 10 coming the closest to land, at only 15.6 km above the surface.
Absolutely no, they had a computer system which had pre-programmed actions, since many tasks were repetitive required precise timing or required controlling multiple outputs at once, which would've been impossible for an astronaut to do, but the computer was manually operated, in fact it took about 15000 keystrokes in total to complete a mission. The computer had a display which indicated the pilots data and what was going on and possible problems, as well as a keyboard and lots of commands to be manually entered.
Sure, you could say the computer commands were actually transmitted from the earth, but that would be quite hard, considering all the maneuvers required, communication delay due to distance, without mentioning that many mechanical elements needed to be physically operate. Since those commands needed to be entered by a human, either from earth or from the module, any loss of communication would've been a disaster in case of an unmanned mission.
One example of the disposability of the computer was the apollo 13 mission, where the crew had to shut it down along with broadcasts due to low power levels, orient the ship using a sextant and timing the burns with a watch.
Undocking, flying the lunar module to the surface of the moon, taking off from the moon and achieving lunar orbit to re-dock again would've been much impressive than what the Russians did. The Russians's probe just landed softly on the moon, and it wouldn't be until 1970 that they would return a sample. The lunar module had to get into lunar orbit again to meet with the command module, and from there the command module would head back to earth. If it was unmanned it would've been a much more complex feat than what the Russians did, and would've been the first of their kind, so I see no point on hiding such feat if it had ever occurred.
Except that many tests were conducted prior to that, remotely undocking, descending, landing autonomously, returning to lunar orbit, and docking again with the command module would've been almost impossible for a human controlling everything from earth. The landing and the ascent stage separation were the only parts that remained to be tested, sometimes you have to take risks.
I agree that Occam's razor can not be applied to everything since simplicity is subjective and I won't use it as an argument, so I'll give you that. But I usually tend to side with the theory with more proof, and all the proof that I provided you is far greater than the assumption that everything was faked which you only have based on speculation.
All the evidence that you deem to be fake.

Part 2:
I'm not sure what are you referring to, a satellite orbiting at the same speed than the moon would fall back to earth, the moon orbits the earth once per 28 days. So NASA couldn't just put a satellite in order to mimic communication. Besides, as I already mentioned, the velocity of a spacecraft can be determined by the doppler shift in the frequency of it's transmission, so for the NASA to fool the Russians a lunar landing would had to be performed, since the frequency shifts due to the changing velocities of the spacecraft would've given their real speed away.
Honestly, those rockets were incredibly complex, using 30 high efficiency engines. But that complexity is what killed their reliability. It's still lol-worthy tho.
What video? Certainly the transmitted video of the apollo 12 showed a lot less, mere minutes before the camera failure compared with the 3 hours of video from the apollo 11..
Regarding the filmed video, there's still some footage about the apollo 11 I haven't posted, like the approach before docking:
Here's the entire docking video:
Some more footage from inside:
Here's the footage of the landing with comunication:
There are still more rare snippets of footage here and there.
Here's another compilation of footage from the apollo 11 mission:
With that, the film footage is almost identical in detail and length, and regarding the transmitted footage, the apollo 11 is far superior.
What parts of the footage look "shady" to you in comparison to that of the apollo 12?

my point exactly. thank for admitting that
absolutely yes. they wouldn't leave all the logic to astronauts (except in case when it would need a reboot). what had to be done by hand was done by hand, the rest was managed by electric brain
because it wasn't supposed to get back. anyway public doesn't care whether it was a lunar module or a probe. so nope, no glory in that
the only problem would be if it got damaged somehow. the rest would be quite easy
when do you think they actually started recording?
under different variables. the actual landing could give plenty of important info that's not so obvious over 15km above the surface
none of these are a decent proof. this is a proof
if you go to moon, you should make sure that everything is well documented instead of recording a bunch of videos and later erasing them, making it look even less legit
i'm saying that they should actually observe the entire thing. like, they had a damn probe on the moon, why wouldn't they use that? or maybe they couldn't, hm?
not the transmitted video. all the videos they've recorded
read carefully. i clearly said "whole thing"

Your unmanned mission theory has more holes than a strainer.
How can an unmanned test on which everything is done remotely and different equipment, programs… are used have the same conditions than a manned one? How do you train the pilots if you control everything remotely?
The answer is the pilot training in order to land was tested extensively on this thing:
Pic related it's the pile of assembly code for the Apollo computers. All the code is freely available.
The Apollo computers are extremely well documented, and your theory doesn't matches with the documentation. The final stage of the landing was manual, and there's no evidence of the contrary. Any changes in the program would've required full testing again and a great amount of work.

The Apollo 11 was manned, and here's why:
Reason 1: For the Apollo 11 to be unmanned either one of this cases needs to happen:
1- Uninterrupted communication for remote control of the spacecraft.
2- A computer capable of autonomously collecting trajectory data from the spacecraft sensors and act accordingly.

Neither two of the cases are possible, number 1 isn't possible because the spacecraft orbited around the moon, so signal was lost when it was behind the moon, uninterrupted control of the spacecraft was impossible. Number 2 isn't possible because although the Apollo computer could read some sensors, it also relied on data entered manually by the astronauts, the astronauts had to read multiple optical sensors, and feed that data to the computer, those sensors could not have been read by a computer, and thus, uninterrupted guidance while orbiting the moon could not be achieved. The landing and docking operations were also carried manually.
The rest of the data was sent from the earth to be entered by the astronauts, as a way to ensure the required precission.

Also, a transmission from space would be necessary, in an unmanned mission, the three hours of transmitted footage would've been needed to be transmitted automatically upon landing, and storing 3 hours of video was not a thing that could be done in an era where the largest storage options were some MB.

No, the Surveyor 1 followed a simply ballistic trajectory, all it had to do it control its thrusters depending on the height. The lunar module had to orbit the moon several times while attached to the command module, undock, descend from its orbit, land, ascend again without the descent stage, meet with the command module, re-dock and set trajectory to earth. Without constant communication or human control this would not have been achieved.
Of course not, the computer on the apollo performed the calculations, calculations were also carried on earth and sent back to the apollo astronauts, but the data was entered BY HAND!
So you're admitting the apollo 11 mission was manned? How else would data be feed when there was no signal?
With a computer with a fraction of the power and memory of a coffee machine? I don't think so. If it was so easy for a prehistoric computer to do it, why not for a human?
Except that test landings were extensively conducted on earth, the only difference is gravity.
They publicly announced the mission would take place, they announced the names of the astronauts that would be on board, the rocket was fired live in front of anyone who wanted to go and see it. So what did they do?

Mathematical proofs are ideal, in reality nothing can be proven with 100% certainty.
They did record 3 hours of transmitted footage + 1-2 hours of film footage + dozens of pictures ÂżIsn't that documented enough for you?
Those tapes contained raw data, it wasn't even a video format that could be played at the time without the use of the converter. The purpose of the tapes was as a support for the live transmission, not to store it. The other videos or pictures weren't erased, and the "erased" footage from tapes that weren't meant to store the video was fully recovered as it was stored in other mediums after processing it.
Here's the "erased" footage, all recovered and with improved quality. You say it like the footage is gone, while there are hours of it and dozens of pictures.
why wouldn't they use that? Maybe because it wasn't designed as a broadcasting station? And maybe because the apollo 11 landing site and the surveyor 1 were at vastly different locations? Now you'll say they launched a secret probe or something, and in the next post you'll say they had a secret moon base where they could hide. Can you sound more ridiculous?
So you say the whole thing looks "shady", without even pointing to anything in particular? That's called argumentation based of subjective feelings.
You can match the craters taken in the video with the crater pictures recently taken by satellites from non US countries.

Also there are hours of hours of audio:

makes more sense that the manned one
to check if the module itself works. and no, it didn't have different equipment, programs etc. it had all the things needed for the actual landing
pilot training != module testing. did you ever read what i wrote?
of course there isn't. that was the whole plan
notice how all the maneuvers during docking were done by lunar module computer "until the last minutes when it was manual" like it couldn't be done better by the computer (except it did)
no shit. this is exactly what you tried to shoo away when i said that they did a full test after changing variables
no, seriously, i'm curious why would that make ANY difference
do you think that if you turn off the radio, you can never listen to the radio station again or something?
it literally did during docking. it's the official NASA statement
yeah…i'm wasting my kb at this point
besides the fact that they could store the vids as analog, the 3 hours of footage wouldn't take as many magnetic tapes as you might think
if it at least the landing took more than 2 hours and the lunar module had a chance to hide from command module behind moon…
like this?
nice urban legend. fits your "knowledge" on the subject
that prehistoric computer could do more operations in a second than you could do in a month. why do you think computers exist?
i don't know but they surely didn't dodge the question
so erasing the only actual evidence makes it more legit how exactly?
they just went missing on their way from Australia. fair enough
yep. totally wasting my kb
than you? not possible
i don't feel like repeating myself for the 4th time
okay, i think i have enough. come back when you actually post something decent, not same shit like your predecessors did (or maybe you're one and the same guy, who knows)

The apollo 11 had lots of inputs, many of which aren't connected to the computer and need to be manually operated. It also has lots of mechanical actuators and things you have to manually plug here and there. You just can't assume the computer was connected to every single thing in the lunar and command module and that there was a sensor for everything, the computers didn't had that many outputs or inputs.
Yeah, it had all the things needed for MANNED landing. Without a crew in there landing would be impossible, since there are many operations that need to be carried by the astronauts before that. In each of the six Apollo landings, the astronaut in command seized control from the computer and landed with his hand on the stick.
It's easy for a computer to calculate trajectories, use a closed loop control system and correct for the changes, in a vacuum there are no obstacles, but computers don't know it the landing zone beneath them is suitable for landing. Nowadays that task is carried with artificial vision, but in the 70's a computer couldn't tell the difference because the software was not powerful enough and because the sensors were very basic. Letting the computer do the touchdown was much riskier than letting the astronauts do it, so in all missions the astronauts touched down manually. If the lunar module landed on an inclination or hit a rock it would tip over, and that's it, the astronauts would never return.

The lunar and command modules were tested extensively on earth on a specially constructed simulator. The maneuvers were tested again an again with engineers throwing many different error codes that the pilot had to solve.
The modules were also extensively tested in space, the lunar module was tested in Apollo 5, 8 and 9 missions, propulsion, maneuvers, everything. Only the landing remained untested, which would be ultimately carried manually by the pilot.

Either you control the spacecraft or the computer controls the spacecraft, I'm proving the computer did not have the capabilities to fully control the spacecraft without human input, thus uninterrupted communication is needed, but uninterrupted communication was not available for long periods of time when orbiting the moon. When they tested the lunar module during the Apollo 5 mission they put the lunar module in earth orbit, because that way they could ensure constant communication, both to control the spacecraft and to gather data uninterruptedly. The saturn 5 didn't perform docking procedures or anything like that because it was unmanned, it simply put the lunar module into orbit where they tested it. The saturn 5 also didn't had a launch scape system, because there was no crew. The apollo 11 did have a launch scape system, either because it was manned or because not using it would've given it away. At this point the inconveniences of carrying a "secret unmanned landing" mission as you put it are clearly visible, with not many advantages over just simply stating that the mission was unmanned and landing for real 4 months later, since as I already mentioned numerous times, the Russians hit a wall when their rocket exploded.

Here's what I think it my best proof against your unmanned landing theory
This is the Alignment Optical Telescope, it is designed to be operated by the astronauts, the telescope takes star sightings which were used to align the Module's guidance system. Without that input data from the astronauts the guidance system can't be aligned.

Besides, as I mentioned before the PGNCS wasn't precise enough, so it needed input data from ground control to be periodically entered by the astronauts.

Except that "all the manouvers" were not done by the computer, keep reading:

No, although parts of the maneuver are automated others are carried manually.,_docking,_and_extraction
Read the procedure:,_docking,_and_extraction#Procedure
Visual aid:

Are you seriously implying they used a robot hand to input data? Kek. The thing would need a signal, which was not available during long periods, as I mentioned.

But it is true, I have 1$ microcontrollers sitting in the parts bin in front of me with far greater memory and processing power along with many other features. Most appliances have microcontrollers with far greater processing power than the apollo 11.
Operations =/ clock cycles

The problem is you can't measure every variable with a sensor, the Alignment Optical Telescope is proof of that. Radars only give you relative distance data from the object you're pointing at, for absolute data which can be used for example to find the command module you need to take measurements from the stars.
Here's also the apollo 11 flight plan, just to add to the pile of documentation you can check. It probably is fake too, they probably had a section of engineers destined to create piles and piles of fake documentation, computer programs, pictures, videos,… all so they could do a test.

I'm not going back to the tapes thing, think what you want about that. The footage is still there, that's what matters to me.