One thing that perplex me when I was a young boy when NASA declared they had sent men on the moon was that why the moon horizon looked so near. Moon would not be that small.
Sebrel, Percy and Kaysin have no reason to lie ..... other than the fact they have all made a fortune selling DVDs and paperbacks to gullible kids.
*
Every word they have said has be debunked over and over. Sebral is not an investigative reporter, he was a taxi driver with a criminal record. Percy has intentionally altered images and Kaysing just talks the talk of an ignorant man. .. but don't let that stop you from taking in every word they say.
There is a thing called Space Tourism. Save enough money. They will take you to the moon and leave you there. You will see all of NASA's equipment there
Prototype of LEM? Idiots, how could they test the prototype of something that was designed to operate under Lunar conditions? It WAS NOT a prototype of LEM, it was supposed to be a training vehicle for the LEM pilot! It did not even have rocket engine, it did have a turbine engine, how the hell could it have been LEM prototype?! These Moon-hoax assholes has not even got a faint idea on what they are arguing about and how rediciolus their explanations are. Shame on you idiots, go and LEARN!!
@VodkaFanClub perhaps the real LEM used secret propulsion technology. if you dont believe the gov had secret tech going on with the space program, then we have nothing to talk about.
hahahha the first thing i hear theres and absence of the engin noise how would it be possible to hear an astronauts voice against the background of a rocket engin hahahha yep those moon hoax believers are the biggest fools out there. brilliant!! so for the stupid guys out there who dont have any knowlege and believe in this crap. ITS ALL PHYSICS... SOUND WAVES IN VACUUM MUCH? there should be only very little sound because the inside is filled with air but the waves r going outside of the rocket
More dumbasses thinking that the greatest thing the human race has ever accomplished didn't happen. I watch this video and laugh because they talk and talk and find errors but fail to prove why because there is NO scientific proof that they are right. NONE. Prove it and then I may take you seriously.
@rxqueen04 explain them then.how did the flag wave?how there wasn't a crater underneath the spacecraft that landed on the moon?if you answer those questions i will believe it's true;)
The Build Team first tested whether dry or wet sand made a more distinguishable footprint by stepping in them with an astronaut boot. It was clear that the wet footprint had more detail than the dry footprint. They then placed sand similar in composition to the Moon’s soil in a vacuum chamber and stepped on it with an astronaut boot, which made a clear print. The reason provided for this was that the unique composition of lunar soil allows it to behave differently than terrestrial soil.
The Build Team placed a replica of the American flag planted on the moon into a vacuum chamber at the Marshall Space Flight Center. They first tested at normal pressure and manipulated the flag. The momentum moved the flag around but the motion quickly dissipated. In vacuum conditions, manipulating the flag caused it to flap vigorously as if it were being blown by a breeze. This demonstrated that a flag could appear to wave in a vacuum, as the Apollo flag did.
To test this myth, the Mythbusters built a large-scale replica of the landing site, allowing them to take a photo which was nearly identical to the original NASA photo. The Mythbusters explained that Armstrong was visible because of ambient light being reflected off of the Moon’s surface.
The Mythbusters built a small-scale replica of the lunar landing site based on the photograph, using reflective sand similar to that found on the Moon, and a single light to represent the Sun. Next, they took a photo which was exactly the same as the NASA photo, including the differing shadows. The Mythbusters explained that the shadows were not parallel because of the way the light falls on the Moon’s natural topography.
Lol i just knew it i cannot even belive that they would murder to lie. They should be arrested. It's so stupid. NASA and the US government were noobs who lie.
Solid proof: 807 kg of hand-selected lunar rocks and soil collected and brought back to earth by 12 highly-trained and well-educated men who were also the best pilots in the world.
There was a small TV camera on the outside of the lunar module descent stage to the left of the ladder and footpad. As Armstrong backed out of the LM hatch, he pulled a lever that lowered and activated the camera. The camera pointed at the base of the ladder and footpad and thus transmitted TV images of Armstrong as he came down the ladder and stepped off the footpad.
Basic knowledge: There was a small TV camera on the outside of the lunar module descent stage to the left of the ladder and footpad. As Armstrong backed out of the LM hatch, he pulled a lever that lowered and activated the camera. The camera pointed at the base of the ladder and footpad and thus transmitted TV images of Armstrong as he came down the ladder and stepped off the footpad.
men i knew this stuff was fake,but i gotta give it up them because now ppl think they did land on da moon .....ha not me,yall can try n hide this but face it sum 1 will put it out there so every1 can c how the gov,nasa ,is a lie
The six lunar landings are a solid FACT. Taught in every academic institution around the world. The Moon rocks and six foot intact core tube samples have been studied around the world and verified to be non-terrestrial. The massive amount of scientific data returned has spawned hundreds of peer reviewed scientific studies and is still studied today. Impossible to fake that amount of evidence for so long. It is the most documented human achievement ever.
Documented also by the Cold War USSR, who tracked telemetry and thus knew that Americans landed and set foot on the moon in July 1969. Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov described the joy he and his colleagues felt that July 20.
The solar constant is 1.361 kilowatts per square meter.1.361 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.95 calories per minute per square centimeter, or 1.95 langleys (Ly) per minute. 1 watt (W) is equal to one joule per second (J/s or m2kgs-3). 1361 watts is 1361 joules per second. 1361 joules per second = 13610000000 ergs per second. 1 erg = 6.24150974 × 10^11 electron volts. Is this correct? Do the conversion yourself and see if it checks out.
The US has already proved it with the testimony of 12 men who landed on the moon (24 in all made the trip, 3 made it twice) and 807 kg of hand-selected samples returned to earth. A professional geologist was on the last mission, Apollo 17. The current Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter shows the landing sites and even footprint trails. It's been proved: six times over.
@69sakibkhan Because the USSR actually knew enough science to know it was real. Unlike the walmart clerk losers who push the "hoax" with a GED education...
- That is all well documented. The evidence of the Moon landings has been in the public domain for decades. Only self absorbed fools think they are smarter than scientsts and engineers who acknowledged the Moon landings.
Please, don't just say "fake" or "crap" just because you don't understand things.
In 1969, NASA had an unlimited budget and manpower. In 2011, NASA has a very tiny budget, and Obama killed funding for another moon landing project. That's why the US can't go back to the moon.
There's a lot more technology now, yes, but NASA doesn't have its huge 1960s budget anymore, and anyway Obama killed funding for the next moon landing program. The USA can't even put a man in earth orbit now!
It was fake for sure, today's technology does not permit remote control to the extent shown in the vid. That kind of technology (remote control) did not exist in the 1960's.
The one giant step for mankind was the FRAUD.
To prepare mankind for the BIG LIE, which is to come.
It takes two or three seconds for remote to respond today, notice that when you watch a newscast. Who really was in control of the camera on the moon?
Need a hint? It wasn't mission control in Houston.
@TheDolfingurl The guy controlling the camera new EXACTLY when the LM should lift off (ever heard of "count down"?), he knew EXACTLY how fast it would rise and he knew EXACTLY how long his signals would take to reach the Moon. He just began to move the camera about a second before lift-off. Piece of cake!
Speaking of remote control: In World War 2, both USA and Germany (and other counries) had remotely controlled aircraft.
The remote control video cameras on the lunar rover vehicles were indeed operated from Mission Control in Houston by a technician named Ed Fendell. The technology WAS perfected by 1971 and 1972 and used on Apollo missions 15, 16, and 17.
The delays you see in your "newscasts" are likely caused by shitty, slow camera operators. NASA employs only the best workers; TV networks sure don't.
Need a hint? This moon hoax stuff is bullshit for the poorly-educated.
At 6.40sec in this clip. How did the camera track the shuttle as it leaves the moon? And with modern day telescopes that can see deep into space. Why can't we see the moon's surface close enough to see foot prints, the USA flag or even the space buggy which was left there? Last point. Why haven't we visited the moon again?
@musicbruv Of course. But that still doesn't answer the question, why can't we see the moon buggy or the space crafts landing gear that was left there from Earth?
I do believe this 100%. I'm so ashamed to be part of this stupid fake country. Once I'm old enough I'm out.. but then again the government EVERYWHERE are the same, one way or another. The United States will do anything to be "better" than anyone else. No doubt that they will hoax something big just for more power
@receiver69 What's your proof? I mean, I'm not completely conviced by this either but, I'm not convinced that we did too (would be pretty cool though). Anyways, you're making a statement. Please, share your back-up support on your opinion.
If you still belive it really happend you are dumb as shit. Even people in the UK know it was a hoax probably more than americans do.
Did you know, N.A.S.A relised they could use a normal pen in outerspace so they spent millions of dollars on research to figure out and invent a pen that does work in outerspace. You know what the Russians used ? A Pencil.
These are the people that was succesful in landing on the moon ? Wake up for fuck sake!
UK and USSR borth had the ability to track radio transmissions from the moon back then. The USSR knew excatly when Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon: July 20, 1969. The Soviets had their own lunar program (a failure) but their tracking system also tracked Apollo missions. So it's patent BULLSHIT to say the UK knew it was a hoax. The UK had personnel at NASA for christ's sake. Don't be daft.
I never saw this crap when it came out years ago on Fox Tv.
Now I see why so many gullible people think the landings was a hoax, those people who will believe anything that's wrapped in a neat little package and shown on TV should keep watching TV.
Ruppert Murdock will show anything on his network for ratings.
@DINDENTS Yeah, I can hardly believe anyone could see this show on FOX Tv and think it was factual. I could debunk every claim in this sensationalistic adulterated show for the masses. When it comes to FoxTv ..money is worth more than truth, sad.
It is hard to believe anyone could make up there mind about the landings without researching a little first, instead of taking a Tv show's word for it.
When this video talks about the 10,000 pound thrust rocket engine, it only proves that its makers don't know how to (or dont' bother to, which, in my opinion is worse) do simple arithmetic.
When all the astronauts said to have walked on or orbited the moon are confronted, majority of them either crumble with guilt or tell a fabulously convincing story that begins to sound rehearsed. They all start to whimper, look down in shame, get angry and just show an overwhelming sense of guilt and embarrassment
Ultimately a few seem to be very good liars but just that, liars. They all ultimately get enraged and destroy their credibility. The evidence didn't convince me, their interviews did!
Most anyone when called a liar will look down and get angry, especially since none of the astronauts are lying. So basically they're being slandered--an illegal act--and very rightly getting angry at paranoid nutjobs who think the moon landings were faked.
You and others like you are enabling psychotics like Bart Sibrel to gain traction and pollute culture and science. Stop. Now. That's an order from someone more intelligent than you.
@MadHighway everything you have said is opinion not fact. It's not slander as you have the freedom to NOT believe what you are told. You are under no obligation to believe it and are under no obligation to surrender your belief and claim that they participated in a fraud.
Jarrah absolutely destroys the boys at NASA and this is consistent with a lot of these debates. I do not watch broadcast television or listen to commercial radio which makes my life far richer and freer than those that do.
FACT: Twelve astronauts, skilled, college-educated, and well-trained pilots landed and worked on the moon from 1969-72 and brought back photos, video, and 807 kg of hand-selected lunar rock and soil (with even a scientist, a geologist, on the last mission).
FACT: the rival USSR--pursuing its own manned landing--easily tracked Apollo missions and confirmed the US did indeed land six times.
You watch too much Youtube, I think. It's the favoured outlet for crackpot hoax proponents.
@MadHighway those are not facts. The fact is I study the law and legal system which none of which you reference serves as factual evidence. This is why we have two sides to a court proceeding. The evidence you have presented is largely hearsay and can be challenged and challenged quite well scientifically using the same sources that provided your evidence.
The fact is, you have no respect for freedom.
I have the right not to believe and you do not have the right to force me or slander me.
Now you blew it. Now you're saying the USSR did not have its owned manned lunar program, did not send its Soyuz-derived Zond craft on circumlunar test flights from 1968 onward, and did not as such have capability to track US lunar missions.
The Soviets are on record stating they knew the US was on the moon.
There are 807 kg of lunar rock and soil collected by men and still studied today by SCIENTISTS. Yours is the extraordinary case; where is your extraordinary evidence?
@MadHighway Those are not facts, they are claims and in court, serve as what is specified as a legal claim, not facts. Now as the court proceedings progress, they can become accepted for fact. That does not make them fact, it just means that judge is willing to accept the evidence as fact even though it can not be proven as such definitively.
Ultimately it is all hearsay, all assumption.
A fact is if you do not eat, drink and sleep, you will die.
Retroreflectors hand-placed on the lunar surface; 807 kg of hand-selected lunar samples, independent corroboration by the Soviet Union of American crews on the moon 1969-1972, and recent photographs which show LM descent stages and astronauts' footprint trails are documented and proven FACTS, not simply hearsay or opinion.
Those are all evidence. You have a belief system you use that counters intellect. I use facts; the facts state your case is horseshit.
@MadHighway again, that is merely direct evidence. Direct evidence is still nothing but a legal claim. What it means is, someone is legally claiming, not to be mistaken with lawfully claiming, that they witnessed something. It can be neither proven or disproved because human beings are not robots quite yet. They can lie.
This is why even with 100 witnesses, judges limit the number allowed to testify so they do not prejudice the case. You have no understanding of what a fact is of law or science
A fact IN science is if you do not eat, drink and breath, you will die.
A fact OF science would be something such as the greenhouse effect. It's of scientific methods and data. It is not a form of science, science is merely used to generate data then based on what is widely excepted in scientific theory, produces a fact OF science.
Not a fact of REALITY.
We are all just brainwashed from birth unfortunately.
Wow, you actually say "pshaw" to direct evidence? Samples gathered by hand by trained observers, analyzed further by peer-reviewed scientists, and independent corroboration by a foreign country would convince any judge.
Apollo-hoax notions have been repeatedly proven false.
So, you called astronauts liars, which in the eyes of the law they are not. You committed slander and you still have not a shred of evidence to back YOUR claim. Yours is the case outside reality: PROVE IT.
@MadHighway I had to explain all of this to you which you clearly still do not understand. My claim is simply that you are not intelligent enough to make a good argument which I have proven thoroughly. Your claim is that I qualify for the childish names you have called me.
@MadHighway soundly is merely your opinion and the opinion of the authors. No court has made such a ruling on either side of the issue and they never will because of the evidence for those in dispute is collectively much much larger than those in support.
So even if the supporters defending the claim are right, the evidence disputing it will win in court because it is far greater in quantity and accepted facts. You have done no research on any of this. I merely choose not to believe, my right.
@MadHighway NASA would lose in terms of evidence which is why no court, judicial or non judicial, will ever agree to hear the case. All you are doing is screaming about what you were told literary or from the media. Not basing it on what you have researched and tested on your own based on accepted facts of science.
In fact the math used is theoretical. Once you reach - and + factors in multiplication, it's a theoretical law. Not actual law and every math beyond is based on that theory.
If you don't understand something, that does not mean it's unreal or faked. The evidence of the Moon landings has been in the public domain for decades. Scientists don't write peer reviews based on hearsay. If you think you can outsmart generations of specialists in aeronautics, aerospace, dynamics, radiology, astronomy, geology, mechanics, engineering, communications, physics, statics, thermodynamics, chemistry, electronics and astrophysics you must be truly self absorbed.
And also, why are you attacking me if you can prove something?
NASA has been confronted and they use theory and personal attacks to defend the evidence that has been generated on the accepted scientific laws they claim to have also used to have put men on the moon.
This information is also public domain and had you researched both arguments as an intelligent, unbias member of the public, you would be aware.
-- I don't understand hoax heads saying "fake" or "no evidence", when the evidence is all around them. I don't understand how someone can get sucked into a hoax belief system based on the premise that every scientist and engineer in the world is either stupid or lying.
Apollo was massive. Videos and pictures taken, tracking real time telemetry from Earth, real time voice communications, sixty scientific experiments left on the surface of the Moon and the data received from them, the rocks and 6 foot long intact core tube samples brought back, satellites launched from the SIM bays into lunar orbit, reflectors left at the landing sites, etc. etc.
Clearly you DO think you are smarter than all those REAL specialists and credentialed people acknowledging the Moon landings of Apollo. People who DO know what they're talking about. Unlike you.
@Rob260259 you're the one that already damned yourself by saying "real time". If there is a delay, it is not real time. Good luck with that 8th grade education bud!
Yes, there is a time delay because FACT: radio waves move at the speed of light, 300,000 km/sec. The moon is about 400,000 km away. 400,000 divided by 300,000 equals 1.3 seconds time delay. Ask a question of Armstrong on the moon, and he hears it 1.3 seconds later. He replies to you, and his reply takes 1.3 seconds to get back. Total time added to conversation: 2.6s.
I don't have to test anything--well-educated professionals with more experience than I have tested and re-tested and re-tested, re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-tested, and there is no evidence to support a claim for a moon landing hoax. My personal feelings and opinions have nothing to do with it. The reality exists independent of my opinion, and most certainly your misbegotten lay opinion.
NASA has corroboration and 807 kg of direct evidence. You and your kind have none.
@MadHighway in fact I emailed MIT and a few other institutes of higher learning a theory and more so, instruction set about 4 years ago, possibly 5. Much time passed and I've though nothing of it since. Have not even revisited the theory in those years. This year, a man from MIT in charge of a lab team has professed to have invented a vaccine that will cure any virus based disease.
My point is I have experienced first hand the lies of these people. You clearly know nothing about the legal system, the mechanisms of government or science. You are simply willing to accept things at face value and I am not.
You have about 230 years of history to investigate but primarily the last 80 years. Then you will know who is behind these events and why they transpire.
Actually you lost the debate, because the flag isn't waving. It's hanging there in vacuum, crumpled from being in its container. Use your brain and learn some science.
I am skeptical on the first Moon travel, but I think the comparison between both crater holes is based on circumstantial evidence (00:00 - 00: 14). There are many crater holes on the moon surface , it´s no strange if one coincides with some crater hole on the Earth. I smell a rat behind this.
All launches use a count-down sequence to control the operations needed for the launch. Houston knew exactly when the LEM would lift off and they sent the signal to pan the camera up in anticipation of this. Even at that, they missed several times before they got it right. They only were really successful with Apollo 17.
As an actual physics teacher, I showed this video right after it aired to my high school physics class, and without any prompting from me, THEY proceeded to rip into its scientific illiteracy and rampant error.
Now if a pack of 16 year old high school students could so easily refute it with honest science, whats the conspiraholics problem?
I have already and it's proof that they did go to the moon and land. If you want to continue to believe that they did not go to the moon,then go ahead and waist your time on it.
Another question, when the lim left the moon, not only was there no plume from rocket exaust but who was left behind filming it since all the crew was back aboard and you clearly see the camera moving upwards as the ship made blast off...so hwo did they get that footage...who was filming it?
branchingvine -- the camera was remote-controled from Mission Control in Houston.
Remote control is a very familar thing in aerospace. They had remote-control model planes in the 1930's. The Space Shuttles of both the U.S. and Russia were capable of being flown by remote control. (Russia's was only ever flown by remote control -- just once. No manned flights.)
In fact, the U.S. Shuttle is capable of a fully automated landing without any remote control or intervention by the pilots.
There are telescopes on earth that can see the moon in a very high resolution...so just get one of these telescopes to zoom in on the bases of the lunar landers that were left there.
oh thanks i didnt know that u really rock and thanks for really helping me on a youtube knowledge thank you for helping me so thanks really for helping me. thanks for helping me and thanks for helpieqwng me really thanks
2:25 - bullshit. That recording before that scene is from the OUTSIDE within the atmosphere. From the inside of a spacecraft in vacuum you don't hear that much from an rocket engine.
@Lord0fSteel I don't think so. It's true that you won't hear any thing when you're in vaccum, BUT when the engine is attached to the surface of that vaccum area you'll hear the noise! sound waves travell through soild material faster than air! Try this, put a recorder in a vaccum and keep let it recored, from the outter surface of the vaccum start knocking, the recorder will recored that! (BTW i forgot to mention that there is NO 100% vaccum! otherwise the pressure will destroy the vaccum box)
hahahahaha keep pretending it didnt happen russia its not americas fault your shit hole country is a third world country lmfao my bad we are the reason your a third world country my bad
if there was 10,000 pounds of thrust where is the fuel??? and if it takes an equal amount for going back into space, where is the fuel for that? the weight and size of the vehicle doesn't add up
Are you freaking kidding me?! It's obivously one of those "artist's conceptions". The design of the lander is different, so it must have been drawn before the lander was actually designed, which means it was also drawn before we'd been to the moon, which means the artist wouldn't have known exactly what the surface was like anyway.
"..the lander was so unstable...in the controlled environment of earth..."
The lunar environment was actually easier to operate in than the earth environment. In earth's atmosphere, the thrust interacted with the air around it, and any gust of wind could impact its flight randomly and without warning. In a vacuum, thrust is more predictable. The trainer's jets and thrusters were actually more complicated than the actual lander's because of a 2nd system to counteract 5/6ths of earth gravity.
He claims that rocket engines are "enormously loud".
In a vacuum, the craft has no air to interact with, and the exhaust has no air to interact with, so no sound of turbulence is created. The minimal sound inside the exhaust would have to be transmitted back up the exhaust stream into the craft. However, the exhaust is initially supersonic and it moves away from the craft faster than its noise moves towards the craft. As the exhaust thins, the speed of sound in it & its density approach 0.
it's easier to fly in scape because there is no air resistence and you travel in a straight line unless altered by gravity or another obect
tacticskriker 3 hours ago
moon dust is reflective. watch mythbusters moon landing and they prove everything is accurate about moon landing pics
sbxlv1 6 days ago
so there saying NASA, the smartest people in the world didnt get anything right in this so called hoax ? okay
sbxlv1 6 days ago
One thing that perplex me when I was a young boy when NASA declared they had sent men on the moon was that why the moon horizon looked so near. Moon would not be that small.
Mbaxtron 1 month ago
Sebrel, Percy and Kaysin have no reason to lie ..... other than the fact they have all made a fortune selling DVDs and paperbacks to gullible kids.
*
Every word they have said has be debunked over and over. Sebral is not an investigative reporter, he was a taxi driver with a criminal record. Percy has intentionally altered images and Kaysing just talks the talk of an ignorant man. .. but don't let that stop you from taking in every word they say.
TheSpiritof1969 1 month ago
the very first people to put in doubt that the americas ever went to the moom, are the americans themselves.
cain3966 1 month ago
equipment not humans!!!
knightcrawler003 1 month ago
Mythbusters already proved this was fake
mrpistheword 1 month ago
There is a thing called Space Tourism. Save enough money. They will take you to the moon and leave you there. You will see all of NASA's equipment there
AbuBishir 2 months ago
come on man the moon has no atomosphere
dredfunn 2 months ago
Prototype of LEM? Idiots, how could they test the prototype of something that was designed to operate under Lunar conditions? It WAS NOT a prototype of LEM, it was supposed to be a training vehicle for the LEM pilot! It did not even have rocket engine, it did have a turbine engine, how the hell could it have been LEM prototype?! These Moon-hoax assholes has not even got a faint idea on what they are arguing about and how rediciolus their explanations are. Shame on you idiots, go and LEARN!!
VodkaFanClub 2 months ago
@VodkaFanClub perhaps the real LEM used secret propulsion technology. if you dont believe the gov had secret tech going on with the space program, then we have nothing to talk about.
BlackRoseRX7 1 month ago
@BlackRoseRX7 ?
VodkaFanClub 1 month ago
Government can do anything even disguise as your grandmother if they wanted to! And you can't do nothing about it!
tukaibilam 2 months ago
@tukaibilam lol
skeetvvideos 2 months ago
Scientific evidence? what the hell is that!
tukaibilam 2 months ago
hahahha the first thing i hear theres and absence of the engin noise how would it be possible to hear an astronauts voice against the background of a rocket engin hahahha yep those moon hoax believers are the biggest fools out there. brilliant!! so for the stupid guys out there who dont have any knowlege and believe in this crap. ITS ALL PHYSICS... SOUND WAVES IN VACUUM MUCH? there should be only very little sound because the inside is filled with air but the waves r going outside of the rocket
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
More dumbasses thinking that the greatest thing the human race has ever accomplished didn't happen. I watch this video and laugh because they talk and talk and find errors but fail to prove why because there is NO scientific proof that they are right. NONE. Prove it and then I may take you seriously.
rxqueen04 3 months ago
@rxqueen04
You're right. Only self absorbed fools and the hardcore conspiracy theorists think they can outsmart scientists. The moon landings are a solid fact.
Rob260259 2 months ago
@rxqueen04 explain them then.how did the flag wave?how there wasn't a crater underneath the spacecraft that landed on the moon?if you answer those questions i will believe it's true;)
Mr7198 2 months ago
thats why i believe the moon landing is real
ManUnited5207 3 months ago
The Build Team first tested whether dry or wet sand made a more distinguishable footprint by stepping in them with an astronaut boot. It was clear that the wet footprint had more detail than the dry footprint. They then placed sand similar in composition to the Moon’s soil in a vacuum chamber and stepped on it with an astronaut boot, which made a clear print. The reason provided for this was that the unique composition of lunar soil allows it to behave differently than terrestrial soil.
ManUnited5207 3 months ago
The Build Team placed a replica of the American flag planted on the moon into a vacuum chamber at the Marshall Space Flight Center. They first tested at normal pressure and manipulated the flag. The momentum moved the flag around but the motion quickly dissipated. In vacuum conditions, manipulating the flag caused it to flap vigorously as if it were being blown by a breeze. This demonstrated that a flag could appear to wave in a vacuum, as the Apollo flag did.
ManUnited5207 3 months ago
To test this myth, the Mythbusters built a large-scale replica of the landing site, allowing them to take a photo which was nearly identical to the original NASA photo. The Mythbusters explained that Armstrong was visible because of ambient light being reflected off of the Moon’s surface.
ManUnited5207 3 months ago
The Mythbusters built a small-scale replica of the lunar landing site based on the photograph, using reflective sand similar to that found on the Moon, and a single light to represent the Sun. Next, they took a photo which was exactly the same as the NASA photo, including the differing shadows. The Mythbusters explained that the shadows were not parallel because of the way the light falls on the Moon’s natural topography.
ManUnited5207 3 months ago
@ManUnited5207 Mythbusters made a mockery of debunking the fake landing idea.
an absolute loot on method and rational. mythbusters are a joke.
Flappyization 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He asks why you couldn't hear the rocket engines.
The answer is very simple.
If there is no air there can be no sound.
nokia3210fuck 3 months ago
Comment removed
nokia3210fuck 3 months ago
Lol i just knew it i cannot even belive that they would murder to lie. They should be arrested. It's so stupid. NASA and the US government were noobs who lie.
DudeCrafter 3 months ago
@punjedi
Solid proof: 807 kg of hand-selected lunar rocks and soil collected and brought back to earth by 12 highly-trained and well-educated men who were also the best pilots in the world.
MadHighway 4 months ago
another point.... if neil armstrong was the first man on the moon then wgo what filming him from the outside of the module?
mizalmighty 4 months ago
@mizalmighty
There was a small TV camera on the outside of the lunar module descent stage to the left of the ladder and footpad. As Armstrong backed out of the LM hatch, he pulled a lever that lowered and activated the camera. The camera pointed at the base of the ladder and footpad and thus transmitted TV images of Armstrong as he came down the ladder and stepped off the footpad.
MadHighway 4 months ago
basic point... how can it be filmed from above when everyone was inside? fake...... sad country
mizalmighty 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mizalmighty
Basic knowledge: There was a small TV camera on the outside of the lunar module descent stage to the left of the ladder and footpad. As Armstrong backed out of the LM hatch, he pulled a lever that lowered and activated the camera. The camera pointed at the base of the ladder and footpad and thus transmitted TV images of Armstrong as he came down the ladder and stepped off the footpad.
MadHighway 4 months ago
men i knew this stuff was fake,but i gotta give it up them because now ppl think they did land on da moon .....ha not me,yall can try n hide this but face it sum 1 will put it out there so every1 can c how the gov,nasa ,is a lie
sirjean007 4 months ago
Comment removed
sirjean007 4 months ago
The six lunar landings are a solid FACT. Taught in every academic institution around the world. The Moon rocks and six foot intact core tube samples have been studied around the world and verified to be non-terrestrial. The massive amount of scientific data returned has spawned hundreds of peer reviewed scientific studies and is still studied today. Impossible to fake that amount of evidence for so long. It is the most documented human achievement ever.
Rob260259 4 months ago
@Rob260259
Documented also by the Cold War USSR, who tracked telemetry and thus knew that Americans landed and set foot on the moon in July 1969. Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov described the joy he and his colleagues felt that July 20.
MadHighway 4 months ago
@MadHighway
You're right. Talking about Leonov; have you seen this interview with Neil Armstrong and Aleksej Leonov?
watch?v=OCfd18hR6Lo&list=FLSs_Hzmun9zW7YySHDh-dBQ&index=77&feature=plpp_video
Check the video of the Austrian TV. It's awesome.
Rob260259 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The solar constant is 1.361 kilowatts per square meter.1.361 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.95 calories per minute per square centimeter, or 1.95 langleys (Ly) per minute. 1 watt (W) is equal to one joule per second (J/s or m2kgs-3). 1361 watts is 1361 joules per second. 1361 joules per second = 13610000000 ergs per second. 1 erg = 6.24150974 × 10^11 electron volts. Is this correct? Do the conversion yourself and see if it checks out.
Daddyo930 5 months ago
If U.S wants to prove that they landed on the moon..then they should send another man landing mission to the moon.
69sakibkhan 5 months ago
@69sakibkhan
The US has already proved it with the testimony of 12 men who landed on the moon (24 in all made the trip, 3 made it twice) and 807 kg of hand-selected samples returned to earth. A professional geologist was on the last mission, Apollo 17. The current Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter shows the landing sites and even footprint trails. It's been proved: six times over.
MadHighway 4 months ago
@69sakibkhan
Why prove anything when the evidence is present in the public domain for decades?
Rob260259 4 months ago
Why Soviet Union believed this crap!!!
69sakibkhan 5 months ago
@69sakibkhan Because the USSR actually knew enough science to know it was real. Unlike the walmart clerk losers who push the "hoax" with a GED education...
SpreadingtheMuse 4 months ago
so is it possible to go to the moon now?
wolfumz 5 months ago
@wolfumz No, we are still under the technology
EpicPrincess100 5 months ago
I Its not possible in 2011 how they did it in 1969...sorry I cant buy this crap
69sakibkhan 5 months ago
@69sakibkhan
"how they did it in 1969"
- That is all well documented. The evidence of the Moon landings has been in the public domain for decades. Only self absorbed fools think they are smarter than scientsts and engineers who acknowledged the Moon landings.
Please, don't just say "fake" or "crap" just because you don't understand things.
Rob260259 5 months ago
@69sakibkhan
In 1969, NASA had an unlimited budget and manpower. In 2011, NASA has a very tiny budget, and Obama killed funding for another moon landing project. That's why the US can't go back to the moon.
MadHighway 4 months ago
Whose the old turd debunking the greatest historical achievement of man? Someone who didn't get to be an astronaut as a kid??! What a loser!!
jackbliss 6 months ago
But if you'd listened you would discover that he WAS an astronaut! lol!
toffeetigerkimba 4 months ago
were is the money they "spend" on this missions
amosatara 6 months ago
I can't believe there are stupid people that believe this shit.
TheEodtch 6 months ago
you can see the look of guilt on buz and co's faces at the time
turnermedman1231 7 months ago
if it was faked in area 51,why have they not got rid of the film sets where they faked it? it dose not make sence to keep them
turnermedman1231 7 months ago
ok if they went in that year whit that tecnology.
why they havnt go again wen thers alot more tecnology?
i say its FAKE they didnt went to the mooon
locoporgolf 7 months ago
@locoporgolf Just give me an intelligent reason why they should spend billions on keep on flying to the Moon???
And WHAT kind of "technology" would make it easier to go back to the Moon?
YDDES 6 months ago
@locoporgolf
There's a lot more technology now, yes, but NASA doesn't have its huge 1960s budget anymore, and anyway Obama killed funding for the next moon landing program. The USA can't even put a man in earth orbit now!
MadHighway 4 months ago
@SoldierofYAH You believe in god but not the moon landings, That is saying something about this event.
morbusspeaks 8 months ago
It was fake for sure, today's technology does not permit remote control to the extent shown in the vid. That kind of technology (remote control) did not exist in the 1960's.
The one giant step for mankind was the FRAUD.
To prepare mankind for the BIG LIE, which is to come.
It takes two or three seconds for remote to respond today, notice that when you watch a newscast. Who really was in control of the camera on the moon?
Need a hint? It wasn't mission control in Houston.
TheDolfingurl 8 months ago
@TheDolfingurl The guy controlling the camera new EXACTLY when the LM should lift off (ever heard of "count down"?), he knew EXACTLY how fast it would rise and he knew EXACTLY how long his signals would take to reach the Moon. He just began to move the camera about a second before lift-off. Piece of cake!
Speaking of remote control: In World War 2, both USA and Germany (and other counries) had remotely controlled aircraft.
YDDES 6 months ago
@TheDolfingurl
The remote control video cameras on the lunar rover vehicles were indeed operated from Mission Control in Houston by a technician named Ed Fendell. The technology WAS perfected by 1971 and 1972 and used on Apollo missions 15, 16, and 17.
The delays you see in your "newscasts" are likely caused by shitty, slow camera operators. NASA employs only the best workers; TV networks sure don't.
Need a hint? This moon hoax stuff is bullshit for the poorly-educated.
MadHighway 4 months ago
Watch
Buzz Aldrin Funny Man 1969
NASAHOAX 9 months ago
At 6.40sec in this clip. How did the camera track the shuttle as it leaves the moon? And with modern day telescopes that can see deep into space. Why can't we see the moon's surface close enough to see foot prints, the USA flag or even the space buggy which was left there? Last point. Why haven't we visited the moon again?
pete401 10 months ago
@pete401 The camera was controlled from Earth!
musicbruv 9 months ago
@musicbruv Of course. But that still doesn't answer the question, why can't we see the moon buggy or the space crafts landing gear that was left there from Earth?
pete401 9 months ago
@pete401 They can be seen in pictures taken from a satellite that was mapping the moon,
musicbruv 9 months ago
mayby, this is where they tested the lunar lander? @0.30
also no crater because it it could just slowly come down to the surface
oh yeah, the footage of armstrong crashing is the only time compared to hundreds of successful flights
finally, there is no atmosphere, so no flame or plume of smoke!!!
PLAYSTATIONBLOKE 10 months ago
mayby, this is where they tested the lunar lander? @0.30
also no crater because it it could just slowly come down to the surface
oh yeah, the footage of armstrong crashing is the only time compared to hundreds of successful flights
PLAYSTATIONBLOKE 10 months ago
mayby, this is where they tested the lunar lander? @0.30
also no crater because it it could just slowly come down to the surface
PLAYSTATIONBLOKE 10 months ago
of course they didn't land on the moon ,,,,,
jarluceportela 10 months ago
I do believe this 100%. I'm so ashamed to be part of this stupid fake country. Once I'm old enough I'm out.. but then again the government EVERYWHERE are the same, one way or another. The United States will do anything to be "better" than anyone else. No doubt that they will hoax something big just for more power
VolcomNancyDope 10 months ago
@receiver69 Aaa k, lol Thanks.
1CLKL 11 months ago
@receiver69 What's your proof? I mean, I'm not completely conviced by this either but, I'm not convinced that we did too (would be pretty cool though). Anyways, you're making a statement. Please, share your back-up support on your opinion.
1CLKL 11 months ago
NASA Nazi lies
kaderoder 11 months ago
If you still belive it really happend you are dumb as shit. Even people in the UK know it was a hoax probably more than americans do.
Did you know, N.A.S.A relised they could use a normal pen in outerspace so they spent millions of dollars on research to figure out and invent a pen that does work in outerspace. You know what the Russians used ? A Pencil.
These are the people that was succesful in landing on the moon ? Wake up for fuck sake!
birminghambred 1 year ago
@birminghambred Couldn't use a normal pen** my bad. lol
birminghambred 1 year ago
@birminghambred
UK and USSR borth had the ability to track radio transmissions from the moon back then. The USSR knew excatly when Armstrong and Aldrin landed on the moon: July 20, 1969. The Soviets had their own lunar program (a failure) but their tracking system also tracked Apollo missions. So it's patent BULLSHIT to say the UK knew it was a hoax. The UK had personnel at NASA for christ's sake. Don't be daft.
MadHighway 4 months ago
I never saw this crap when it came out years ago on Fox Tv.
Now I see why so many gullible people think the landings was a hoax, those people who will believe anything that's wrapped in a neat little package and shown on TV should keep watching TV.
Ruppert Murdock will show anything on his network for ratings.
No scruples.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead dude, all the details are there for you, i dont see how you couldn't believe it.
DINDENTS 1 year ago
@DINDENTS Yeah, I can hardly believe anyone could see this show on FOX Tv and think it was factual. I could debunk every claim in this sensationalistic adulterated show for the masses. When it comes to FoxTv ..money is worth more than truth, sad.
It is hard to believe anyone could make up there mind about the landings without researching a little first, instead of taking a Tv show's word for it.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
I think that this old man is jst jealous because he wasnt chossen to go to the moon,
FAIL old man grow up
iedgarmelendez13 1 year ago
@iedgarmelendez13
r u with tha CIA
lol
hgufhdi 1 year ago
When this video talks about the 10,000 pound thrust rocket engine, it only proves that its makers don't know how to (or dont' bother to, which, in my opinion is worse) do simple arithmetic.
And there are several other lies included also.
This video is itself a fraud.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@SoldierofYAH INdeed !
CheyennedeLuna77 1 year ago
OMG is that true?? is the landing fake??? as i see in the video the landing is fake !?
SamLebanon1 1 year ago
I agree with a lot that's said here... but... if there's no air on the moon, then there's no sound also, right? That's why you can't hear the engine.
Ineeee 1 year ago
this is sooooo fake! they have very good pionts in this too!
xchickengalx 1 year ago
When all the astronauts said to have walked on or orbited the moon are confronted, majority of them either crumble with guilt or tell a fabulously convincing story that begins to sound rehearsed. They all start to whimper, look down in shame, get angry and just show an overwhelming sense of guilt and embarrassment
Ultimately a few seem to be very good liars but just that, liars. They all ultimately get enraged and destroy their credibility. The evidence didn't convince me, their interviews did!
JonDeth 1 year ago
@JonDeth
Most anyone when called a liar will look down and get angry, especially since none of the astronauts are lying. So basically they're being slandered--an illegal act--and very rightly getting angry at paranoid nutjobs who think the moon landings were faked.
You and others like you are enabling psychotics like Bart Sibrel to gain traction and pollute culture and science. Stop. Now. That's an order from someone more intelligent than you.
MadHighway 4 months ago
@MadHighway everything you have said is opinion not fact. It's not slander as you have the freedom to NOT believe what you are told. You are under no obligation to believe it and are under no obligation to surrender your belief and claim that they participated in a fraud.
Jarrah absolutely destroys the boys at NASA and this is consistent with a lot of these debates. I do not watch broadcast television or listen to commercial radio which makes my life far richer and freer than those that do.
JonDeth 4 months ago
@JonDeth
FACT: Twelve astronauts, skilled, college-educated, and well-trained pilots landed and worked on the moon from 1969-72 and brought back photos, video, and 807 kg of hand-selected lunar rock and soil (with even a scientist, a geologist, on the last mission).
FACT: the rival USSR--pursuing its own manned landing--easily tracked Apollo missions and confirmed the US did indeed land six times.
You watch too much Youtube, I think. It's the favoured outlet for crackpot hoax proponents.
MadHighway 4 months ago
@MadHighway those are not facts. The fact is I study the law and legal system which none of which you reference serves as factual evidence. This is why we have two sides to a court proceeding. The evidence you have presented is largely hearsay and can be challenged and challenged quite well scientifically using the same sources that provided your evidence.
The fact is, you have no respect for freedom.
I have the right not to believe and you do not have the right to force me or slander me.
JonDeth 4 months ago
@JonDeth
Now you blew it. Now you're saying the USSR did not have its owned manned lunar program, did not send its Soyuz-derived Zond craft on circumlunar test flights from 1968 onward, and did not as such have capability to track US lunar missions.
The Soviets are on record stating they knew the US was on the moon.
There are 807 kg of lunar rock and soil collected by men and still studied today by SCIENTISTS. Yours is the extraordinary case; where is your extraordinary evidence?
MadHighway 4 months ago
@MadHighway Those are not facts, they are claims and in court, serve as what is specified as a legal claim, not facts. Now as the court proceedings progress, they can become accepted for fact. That does not make them fact, it just means that judge is willing to accept the evidence as fact even though it can not be proven as such definitively.
Ultimately it is all hearsay, all assumption.
A fact is if you do not eat, drink and sleep, you will die.
So in fact, you have no evidence. Just claims
JonDeth 4 months ago
@JonDeth
Retroreflectors hand-placed on the lunar surface; 807 kg of hand-selected lunar samples, independent corroboration by the Soviet Union of American crews on the moon 1969-1972, and recent photographs which show LM descent stages and astronauts' footprint trails are documented and proven FACTS, not simply hearsay or opinion.
Those are all evidence. You have a belief system you use that counters intellect. I use facts; the facts state your case is horseshit.
MadHighway 4 months ago
@MadHighway again, that is merely direct evidence. Direct evidence is still nothing but a legal claim. What it means is, someone is legally claiming, not to be mistaken with lawfully claiming, that they witnessed something. It can be neither proven or disproved because human beings are not robots quite yet. They can lie.
This is why even with 100 witnesses, judges limit the number allowed to testify so they do not prejudice the case. You have no understanding of what a fact is of law or science
JonDeth 4 months ago
@JonDeth in fact, I will use language to explain.
A fact IN science is if you do not eat, drink and breath, you will die.
A fact OF science would be something such as the greenhouse effect. It's of scientific methods and data. It is not a form of science, science is merely used to generate data then based on what is widely excepted in scientific theory, produces a fact OF science.
Not a fact of REALITY.
We are all just brainwashed from birth unfortunately.
JonDeth 4 months ago
@JonDeth
No, I think clearly and I undersstand facts and science. NOW you have the temerity to say that "we are just brainwashed from birth."
Holy crap, man, you are delusional. Lunar samples hand-collected is a fact. Soviet corroboration of the US moon landings is a fact.
That you resorted to saying all humanity is brainwashed (brainwashed by whom?) was a well-aimed shot in your own foot. Get back to your bong.
MadHighway 4 months ago
@JonDeth
Wow, you actually say "pshaw" to direct evidence? Samples gathered by hand by trained observers, analyzed further by peer-reviewed scientists, and independent corroboration by a foreign country would convince any judge.
Apollo-hoax notions have been repeatedly proven false.
So, you called astronauts liars, which in the eyes of the law they are not. You committed slander and you still have not a shred of evidence to back YOUR claim. Yours is the case outside reality: PROVE IT.
MadHighway 4 months ago
@MadHighway I had to explain all of this to you which you clearly still do not understand. My claim is simply that you are not intelligent enough to make a good argument which I have proven thoroughly. Your claim is that I qualify for the childish names you have called me.
I hope you and Rob are very happy together!
Goodbye.
JonDeth 4 months ago
@MadHighway
JonDeth: "We are all just brainwashed from birth unfortunately."
- I wonder; who did the brainwashing of JonDeth?
LOL
Rob260259 4 months ago
@JonDeth
Jarrah has tried legally to suppress Youtube sites that soundly debunk hoax claims.
MadHighway 4 months ago
@MadHighway soundly is merely your opinion and the opinion of the authors. No court has made such a ruling on either side of the issue and they never will because of the evidence for those in dispute is collectively much much larger than those in support.
So even if the supporters defending the claim are right, the evidence disputing it will win in court because it is far greater in quantity and accepted facts. You have done no research on any of this. I merely choose not to believe, my right.
JonDeth 4 months ago
@JonDeth
So what you say is:
that in the face of direct evidence,
and that you know your case would be shot before it went to court,
and that a judge who would understand and accept frank testimony by experts in the field using undeniable evidence,
that you would "choose" to believe hoax nonsense because it's your "right" to delude yourself.
G'bye, and good luck. There's no hope with a deluded mindset like yours.
MadHighway 4 months ago
@MadHighway NASA would lose in terms of evidence which is why no court, judicial or non judicial, will ever agree to hear the case. All you are doing is screaming about what you were told literary or from the media. Not basing it on what you have researched and tested on your own based on accepted facts of science.
In fact the math used is theoretical. Once you reach - and + factors in multiplication, it's a theoretical law. Not actual law and every math beyond is based on that theory.
JonDeth 4 months ago
@JonDeth
If you don't understand something, that does not mean it's unreal or faked. The evidence of the Moon landings has been in the public domain for decades. Scientists don't write peer reviews based on hearsay. If you think you can outsmart generations of specialists in aeronautics, aerospace, dynamics, radiology, astronomy, geology, mechanics, engineering, communications, physics, statics, thermodynamics, chemistry, electronics and astrophysics you must be truly self absorbed.
Rob260259 4 months ago
@Rob260259 well what is it you do not understand?
And also, why are you attacking me if you can prove something?
NASA has been confronted and they use theory and personal attacks to defend the evidence that has been generated on the accepted scientific laws they claim to have also used to have put men on the moon.
This information is also public domain and had you researched both arguments as an intelligent, unbias member of the public, you would be aware.
Clearly you just want to insult me.
JonDeth 4 months ago
@JonDeth
"what is it you do not understand?"
-- I don't understand hoax heads saying "fake" or "no evidence", when the evidence is all around them. I don't understand how someone can get sucked into a hoax belief system based on the premise that every scientist and engineer in the world is either stupid or lying.
Rob260259 4 months ago
@JonDeth
"no evidence"
Apollo was massive. Videos and pictures taken, tracking real time telemetry from Earth, real time voice communications, sixty scientific experiments left on the surface of the Moon and the data received from them, the rocks and 6 foot long intact core tube samples brought back, satellites launched from the SIM bays into lunar orbit, reflectors left at the landing sites, etc. etc.
You want evidence? Study Apollo.
Rob260259 4 months ago
@Rob260259 clearly you have studied nothing. There is a time delay between all NASA missions and ground control transmissions.
More hearsay anyone?
JonDeth 4 months ago
@JonDeth
Cleary you don't understand basic physics. Of course there is a time delay. What is the speed of EM energy?
More ignorance anyone?
Rob260259 4 months ago
@JonDeth
Clearly you DO think you are smarter than all those REAL specialists and credentialed people acknowledging the Moon landings of Apollo. People who DO know what they're talking about. Unlike you.
Rob260259 4 months ago
@JonDeth
"There is a time delay"
So unless you have any other bright words of wisdom, have a nice day.
Rob260259 4 months ago
@Rob260259 you're the one that already damned yourself by saying "real time". If there is a delay, it is not real time. Good luck with that 8th grade education bud!
JonDeth 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JonDeth
You don't know much, do you...?
Rob260259 4 months ago
@JonDeth
Yes, there is a time delay because FACT: radio waves move at the speed of light, 300,000 km/sec. The moon is about 400,000 km away. 400,000 divided by 300,000 equals 1.3 seconds time delay. Ask a question of Armstrong on the moon, and he hears it 1.3 seconds later. He replies to you, and his reply takes 1.3 seconds to get back. Total time added to conversation: 2.6s.
Man, your grasp is weak.
MadHighway 4 months ago
@JonDeth
I don't have to test anything--well-educated professionals with more experience than I have tested and re-tested and re-tested, re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-tested, and there is no evidence to support a claim for a moon landing hoax. My personal feelings and opinions have nothing to do with it. The reality exists independent of my opinion, and most certainly your misbegotten lay opinion.
NASA has corroboration and 807 kg of direct evidence. You and your kind have none.
MadHighway 4 months ago
@MadHighway in fact I emailed MIT and a few other institutes of higher learning a theory and more so, instruction set about 4 years ago, possibly 5. Much time passed and I've though nothing of it since. Have not even revisited the theory in those years. This year, a man from MIT in charge of a lab team has professed to have invented a vaccine that will cure any virus based disease.
About 3-4 weeks ago I read up on what he did.
He used my theory and sold it as his.
Who will believe me?
JonDeth 4 months ago
@JonDeth
What does this have to do with your mistaken belief that the Apollo moon landings were hoaxes?
MadHighway 4 months ago
@MadHighway again, you are using slander.
My point is I have experienced first hand the lies of these people. You clearly know nothing about the legal system, the mechanisms of government or science. You are simply willing to accept things at face value and I am not.
You have about 230 years of history to investigate but primarily the last 80 years. Then you will know who is behind these events and why they transpire.
You think you own property in this country?
Under HJR-192, you don't.
JonDeth 4 months ago
@JonDeth
You have no point. And now you say the moon landings are a hoax because you believe the government says there's no such thing as private property?
Another paranoid Youtube crackpot so delusional that he can say "direct evidence is meaningless." Ok.
MadHighway 4 months ago
there's no wind or air in space right... then why is the flag blowing in the wind
. i used that for a science debate and won the debate- use it for yours your sure to get somewhere
16ISMYNUMBER 1 year ago
@16ISMYNUMBER
Actually you lost the debate, because the flag isn't waving. It's hanging there in vacuum, crumpled from being in its container. Use your brain and learn some science.
MadHighway 4 months ago
@MadHighway Ooohhh..... -.-
16ISMYNUMBER 4 months ago
I am skeptical on the first Moon travel, but I think the comparison between both crater holes is based on circumstantial evidence (00:00 - 00: 14). There are many crater holes on the moon surface , it´s no strange if one coincides with some crater hole on the Earth. I smell a rat behind this.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
i completely believe it was fake, purely because i dont underestimate how manipulative the american government is.
KingYumYum 1 year ago
Thanks for the upload.
royalman33 1 year ago
@punjedi Ya the delay is about half seconds you smart ass I would call that a long delay
Diatidialga 1 year ago
coz there is no evidence, it's all staged kinda like a false flag
carismatic10111 1 year ago
off course they DID NOT! land on the moon
carismatic10111 1 year ago
Then why is that ? ...
Fr4nkWh1te 1 year ago
All launches use a count-down sequence to control the operations needed for the launch. Houston knew exactly when the LEM would lift off and they sent the signal to pan the camera up in anticipation of this. Even at that, they missed several times before they got it right. They only were really successful with Apollo 17.
nesokretep 2 years ago
american always cheating
oxa4pinoo 2 years ago
As an actual physics teacher, I showed this video right after it aired to my high school physics class, and without any prompting from me, THEY proceeded to rip into its scientific illiteracy and rampant error.
Now if a pack of 16 year old high school students could so easily refute it with honest science, whats the conspiraholics problem?
An actual science education perhaps? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
I have already and it's proof that they did go to the moon and land. If you want to continue to believe that they did not go to the moon,then go ahead and waist your time on it.
Tomekwinxs 2 years ago
Yes we did go to the moon. We have picture of the crafts and walking prints on the moon.
Tomekwinxs 2 years ago
That's an even better question! And when did we develop the first remote control cameras...anyone know?
branchingvine 2 years ago
Another question, when the lim left the moon, not only was there no plume from rocket exaust but who was left behind filming it since all the crew was back aboard and you clearly see the camera moving upwards as the ship made blast off...so hwo did they get that footage...who was filming it?
branchingvine 2 years ago
branchingvine -- the camera was remote-controled from Mission Control in Houston.
Remote control is a very familar thing in aerospace. They had remote-control model planes in the 1930's. The Space Shuttles of both the U.S. and Russia were capable of being flown by remote control. (Russia's was only ever flown by remote control -- just once. No manned flights.)
In fact, the U.S. Shuttle is capable of a fully automated landing without any remote control or intervention by the pilots.
nesokretep 2 years ago
can we see the flag we left on the moon with a telescope?
Tomekwinxs 2 years ago
I call it the moon hoax.
Reptilianmuseum 2 years ago
the first time it was a hoax.
they wanted to win russia in getting to the moon.
so they fake it.
but few mission's later when the technology was able to do that they really land on the moon.
keshaz12 2 years ago
man did not land on the moon
dillhalo3 2 years ago
of course not, the russian would have been there if the USA really were.
MyWordizBond 2 years ago
There are telescopes on earth that can see the moon in a very high resolution...so just get one of these telescopes to zoom in on the bases of the lunar landers that were left there.
I believe we went to the moon
aggiefreak360 2 years ago
wow that NASA spokesman never proves anything he only says "they have say everything is a fake"
alltops 2 years ago
lol, I agree!!
TRUDOWNSOUTH 2 years ago
how come you can upload a video that is 10 mins and 2 seconds long
sdthird10 2 years ago
anyone can, your actual limit is 10:59
BL1tt3R 2 years ago
oh thanks i didnt know that u really rock and thanks for really helping me on a youtube knowledge thank you for helping me so thanks really for helping me. thanks for helping me and thanks for helpieqwng me really thanks
sdthird10 2 years ago
it is a hoax
sdthird10 2 years ago
2:25 - bullshit. That recording before that scene is from the OUTSIDE within the atmosphere. From the inside of a spacecraft in vacuum you don't hear that much from an rocket engine.
Lord0fSteel 2 years ago 8
@Lord0fSteel haha do you actually believe the bullshit you write?
XxM4RtyRxX 1 year ago
@Lord0fSteel I don't think so. It's true that you won't hear any thing when you're in vaccum, BUT when the engine is attached to the surface of that vaccum area you'll hear the noise! sound waves travell through soild material faster than air! Try this, put a recorder in a vaccum and keep let it recored, from the outter surface of the vaccum start knocking, the recorder will recored that! (BTW i forgot to mention that there is NO 100% vaccum! otherwise the pressure will destroy the vaccum box)
MrArabSon 11 months ago
Comment removed
bobcheese427 5 months ago
hahahahaha keep pretending it didnt happen russia its not americas fault your shit hole country is a third world country lmfao my bad we are the reason your a third world country my bad
ericevanson21 2 years ago
if there was 10,000 pounds of thrust where is the fuel??? and if it takes an equal amount for going back into space, where is the fuel for that? the weight and size of the vehicle doesn't add up
mard420 2 years ago
how should you know? have you done the math?
I'll tell you this though- getting off the moon is significantly easier than getting off the earth!
DesiDito 2 years ago
assholes, man DID go to the moon. this videos ar bullshit
guttentard 2 years ago
you are bs
Globox822 2 years ago
And you aint said shit.
TRUDOWNSOUTH 2 years ago
"NASA's own scientific illustrations..."
Are you freaking kidding me?! It's obivously one of those "artist's conceptions". The design of the lander is different, so it must have been drawn before the lander was actually designed, which means it was also drawn before we'd been to the moon, which means the artist wouldn't have known exactly what the surface was like anyway.
siclos 2 years ago
"Who filmed the Ascent Stage of the Lunar Module ?"
The lunar rover vehicle had a camera and transmission equipment and was left on the moon.
siclos 2 years ago
"..the lander was so unstable...in the controlled environment of earth..."
The lunar environment was actually easier to operate in than the earth environment. In earth's atmosphere, the thrust interacted with the air around it, and any gust of wind could impact its flight randomly and without warning. In a vacuum, thrust is more predictable. The trainer's jets and thrusters were actually more complicated than the actual lander's because of a 2nd system to counteract 5/6ths of earth gravity.
siclos 2 years ago
He claims that rocket engines are "enormously loud".
In a vacuum, the craft has no air to interact with, and the exhaust has no air to interact with, so no sound of turbulence is created. The minimal sound inside the exhaust would have to be transmitted back up the exhaust stream into the craft. However, the exhaust is initially supersonic and it moves away from the craft faster than its noise moves towards the craft. As the exhaust thins, the speed of sound in it & its density approach 0.
siclos 2 years ago