Ad Onor del Vero l'uomo non è ancora andato sulla Luna !
Troverete le prove schiaccianti digitando su GOOGLE " WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON "
Se invece preferite continuare a credere che dodici astronauti americani sono stati sulla Luna, fate pure così ! - CONTENTI VOI CONTENTI TUTTI !! ( ...soprattutto quelli che vi hanno sonoramente turlupinati ! - AH ! AH ! AH ! AH ! )
Ciao a tutti dall'Italia e, se potete, cercate almeno di starmi bene !
pipercub123456, Yes, I know there were 2 fakers, what I meant was who possesed and operated the movie camera, was it mounted or static and did it have a viewfinder?
@thecubanism ..I only see one man in the Lunar Rover?? using our imagination, do you think it could be the other Apollo Astronaut doing the filming??..I believe, there were two that landed on the Moon at the same time???......Cheers
I lost a bet. I said that on the 40th aniversary of the moon landing they would point this powerful telescope to the moon and charge a dolar for letting people wacth the roover (and the flag) for one whole minute..
Bumped into this video and what do I find, shills and trolls. Not surprised, but I would rather see people discussing the rover, especially how much it looks just like a billion dollar dune buggy.
Somebody actually got to do that....just imagine! Somebody actually gets to say to their grandchildren: "You know kid, there was a time when grandpa was drivin' around on the moon. No no, i'm serious!". Now, that's inspiring beyond belief!
It's the only place someone could post a picture of a bunny rabbit, and within two days people are calling each other a - holes, communists and perverts.
It's like this. When we return to the Moon and visit the Apollo landing sites, these stupid hoaxer cunts will just say that the new stuff is fake too. If you took a hoaxer to the Moon to show him that it all really happened, he'd just say it was a drug induced hallucination. You cannot convince a moron of anything, I'm afraid.
@ 18 secs. Watch the roving idiot approaching the fake and small model of the lander and the spray from the wheels going everywhere. When nausea admits everything was faked, and this shall happen soon, all Apollogists will wish for the ground to open up and them fall in. The Truth is out there......
@toffa66 Dust clouds float in the air. Air resistance keeps them airborne. There's no air on the moon.
The dust seems to rise really high and behaves as it would with that much gravity acting on it. It takes longer to return to the ground than it would on Earth and it also seems to kick up higher volumes of it too.
I've never seen this video before, it's pretty cool.
Let me ask you this: How do you know by watching the video what 1.662m/sec^2 g looks like. You have never seen 1.662m/sec g before?
The only G you are used to looking at every day is approximately 10m/sec^2 g. There is a very big difference between 1.662m/sec g compared to 10m/sec g.
@toffa66 You're right. Neither of us know what it looks like but I do know that it IS behaving differently. I don't really know how they could do that in a studio. A vacuum sucking from above the camera? I don't know. I could sit and work out it's acceleration in relation to the Rover's height maybe that'd help clear things up.
By the way I'm not trying to prove we went to the moon, I'll analyze the given evidence and then come to a conclusion. We could do the same on the salute vid.
Well bottom line, when a government has so many resources, it can lie so well that there's no way to see if they're telling the truth based on how they lie. So you have to consider the outside evidence yourself, such as talk of that radiation belt (forgot the name) and other things, so if you're wondering if they did it, don't look at the evidence they provided.
The dirt fell much to quickly, there should be a fine dust hanging everywhere thqat rover went...we chose to build our spacestation in the vast emptiness rather than the moon, ever wonder why?
@movadoband Incorrect, In an environment with no atmosphere, all objects fall at the same rate. Example The famous hammer and feather drop. On the moon a speck of dust and a hammer will also fall at the same rate. If the moon had an atmosphere, then coupled with the one sixth the gravity of the earth that the moon has, dust as you say would be hanging everywhere. Man went to the moon.
pretty amazing for 1960's tech. We could have used NASA's ingenuity to get a usable electric car in the 70's not the 2000's. The modern electric car needs a sizable battery. Where is the 1960's battery on the lunar rover? Seems to have a fair amount of torque, which is something we're just now getting with modern electrics. But you are right, none of that seems strange.
@dhudson369 -- If you actually want to understand the thing you are whining about and calling "fake" you COULD look up the design of the thing.
I know it's really easy to say "OMG!!!11 taht dosn't make any cents!!" or whatever idiot crap people like to say. And it's a little harder to actually do some research and understand the thing, but it's not really all that hard.
There are even videos of the rover being deployed on the moon and of tests of it being stored and deployed back on Earth.
Lunar hoaxers are so insulting it hurts. With every piece of inane shit that comes out of their mouth they are disregarding the STAGGERING technological achievement that it was and the thousands of man hours put into the project by truly gifted individuals who we all owe a massive debt for the vast advancements in knowledge that was reaped from their labors.
Who is dumber? A lunar hoaxer or a Creationist? Very tough question.
The Luna Hoaxer is dumber. You can disprove the hoaxer, yet they blindly go on thinking it was a hoax. As of yet, Creationism (Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being) cannot be disproved.
Sorry to insult your non thinking brain dude. It is probably not normal for a person like you to ask questions about something that dont add up.
Let me ask you this: Why does the up and down motion of this rover not move with 1.662m/sec^2 g when its moving forwards over all these bumps? The rover should have a faster acceleration upwards then its acceleration downwards. Because there is 1.662m/sec^2 g on the moon. Why can't we tell the difference between up and down motions?
@toffa66 The way I see the jumping up not being different is due to the weight they were carrying, also they couldn't bend their legs very well. Plus as soon as they do jump up gravity is still there pulling them back down so instantly they will deccelarate.
Also, the Rover's wheels are pushing it a lot faster than gravity can act so upward and downward motion would be decided by the floor's friction wouldn't it? Anyway, I may be wrong and have my common sense in a twist so I'm gonna go eat.
@riggermortisify. Their weight compared to their strength is the clue to knowing what is going on. Their strength would be the same on the moon as on earth. But their weight on the moon would be 1/6 of their weight on earth. So jumping up should be the least of their problems. When they jump up, only gravity will reduce their acceleration upwards. So they should be able to accelerate upwards without any problems, but come down much slower.
@toffa66 -- When a thing gets bounced off the surface (or an astronaut jumps off the surface, or sand or a rock or anything gets thrown off the surface) ... the time it takes to go up should be exactly the same as the time it takes to go back down.
Unless some other force acts on it while it is aloft, it needs to hit the ground with exactly the same speed as it left the ground.
If you think a object uses the same time up as it would on its way down. YOU dont understand how gravity works. A object that is being "forced" up on the moon no matter what it is, can only be slowed down by gravity 1.662m/sec g.
That means the moons gravity must first slow the object down to zero velocity before the moons gravity starts to force the object down with 1.662m/sec^2. So velocity speed up can never be equal to velocity speed down.
Learn basic physics SOMEWHERE before you make any more silly claims.
An object in a ballistic trajectory (one which receives an impulse up away from the surface with no atmospheric resistance) MUST hit the surface with the SAME speed as it began.
This is very basic Newtonian physics ... you know ... Newton, the guy who invented Calculus.
@nesokretep. Jesse's Christ. Where did you learn your physics?
When you throw something up into the air. Do you honestly think the speed you throw an object up with is equal to the to the force of gravity? I will tell you this as a fact; The acceleration speed you throw an object up with will be a lot greater then the acceleration speed it will fall with. But what do you know?
Go to school already and learn something useful so you can argue with knowledge.
@toffa66 -- At least I know that "speed" and "force" are two different things.
Of course the "speed you throw an object up with" is NOT "equal to the force of gravity" because velocity is not even in the same unit of measure as acceleration, so there is no possibly way for them to be "equal" under any condition whatsoever.
So: Nothing I said suggests that the two things are the same.
I repeat my earlier recommendation:
Go read a physics book before you make any more stupid statements.
@toffa66 -- If you do want to continue this conversation, though, and if you want to learn something about the velocity at which something must go up and come down, I'll have to ask a few questions to see if you understand some basics:
Do you know what kinetic energy is? Do you know what potential energy is?
And do you have some idea as to how they both relate to gravity and an object on a ballistic trajectory?
@toffa66 -- Did you even read my last reply? If so you apparently did not understand it.
There is no such thing as "acceleration speed."
Your question is absurd because the terminology you are using is invalid.
Once you indicate that you understand why this is the case, we can continue. Until then you are by default in effect admitting that you do not understand the most basic principles of mechanics.
@toffa66 -- What I said was that the term "acceleration speed" is invalid. If you do not understand why that is, then you are the one who is having a problem.
But again, for clarity about the terms, and in case you can follow, for objects on a ballistic trajectory:
(1) The absolute value of the vertical VELOCITY will be exactly the same at the beginning and end of the flight.
(2) The ACCELERATION of the object will be constant and in the same direction througout the entire flight.
@toffa66 -- An object on a ballistic trajectory (one that receives an impulse at ground level and is in free flight without air resistance untill its fall is complete) will travel in a parabolic arc.
The second half of the arc (the fall) will be an exact mirror of the first half of the arc (the rise).
At each and every altitude on its way down, it will be going with the same speed but opposite direction as it had at the same altitude on its way up.
@nesokretep. Listen up. A projectile that is traveling exactly horizontally in a vacuum. Will have the same start velocity (m/s) as its end velocity m/s.
But a projectile that has a vertical angle "above" horizontal, will slow down do to gravity.
If you aim the projectile in a angle below horizontal. The projectile will not slow down until it meats resistance.
@toffa66 -- What you say is all true, although it is not very specific. And it does not in any way contradict anything I said.
The general rule is: When an object is in free-fall (which a "projectile" is) it has a constant acceleration applied to it equal to the acceleration due to gravity in its region of space. The acceleration applied to it is constant no matter which direction it is going. And, unless some other force is applied, it is the only acceleration the object has.
(1) Yes, if is traveling horizontally in a vacuum the horizontal component of its velocity remains constant until some other force is applied (or it hits something like the ground) but it will accelerate vertically toward the ground with the acceleration due to gravity.
Yes. Regardless of which direction it is angled, it will have a constant acceleration due to gravity. That acceleration will be down (toward the surface). So:
(2) If it happens to be traveling up, then the acceleration due to gravity will slow its upward motion until its upward motion stops. For its entire flight it will remain subject to the constant acceleration due to gravity and it will be pulled downward in a motion that is an exact mirror of its upward motion.
@toffa66 -- and (3) if it happens to start off going downward, then the constant acceleration due to gravity will add to the original downward component of its motion and speed it up on its way to the surface.
Is there some part of this that you think is wrong or that you think contradicts anything I said earlier?
If it starts off from the ground with a single impulse, it will travel up, and then arc downward and will eventually hit the ground at the same speed as its initial velocity upwards.
@nesokretep. Well i have something to say to (3). On the moon a object that is falling will ONLY accelerate with 1.662m/s^2. It dosent matter what its weight is. A hammer and a dust particle should hit the ground at the exact same time (if they are dropped at the same time).
Your upward velocity is wrong. It will not equal velocity down. Well; Unless the impulse makes the object leave surface with 1.662m/sec^2.
@toffa66 -- Your thing you have to say to (3) is exactly the same as I have been saying. Any object in free-fall will be subject to acceleration due to gravity. That is the only acceleration it will be subject to. And it does not depend on the mass (or the weight) of the object. Acceleration due to gravity is 1.662m/s^2 near the surface of the moon. That is correct. Any object which is near the surface of the moon will be subect to that acceleration whether it is a hammer or a piece of dust.
An object that is given impulse away from the surface will be going a certain speed as soon as it leaves the surface. The height that it reaches will depend on the speed that it starts out with. As it flys, it will be subject to constant acceleraton of 1.662m/s^2 toward the surface. This acceleration toward the surface is constant whether the object is traveling up or down because the force applied by acceleration due to gravity is constant.
@toffa66 -- it will fly upwards until its acceleration in a downward direction overcomes its upward velocity and then it will start to move downward. The more impulse it receives when it leaves the ground the higher it goes. The higher it goes, the longer it is subject to acceleration due to gravity. So the higher it goes, the faster it is going downward when it reaches the surface. When it reaches the surface, it will be going the same speed downwards as it was going upwards when it started.
@nesokretep No it wont; unless the object is going up with 1.622m/sec^2. Only then will the velocity up be equal to velocity velocity down. There is a big difference in throwing something up against the force of gravity, compared to something falling down with the force of gravity.
@nesokretep. I don't mind. I am not the one who has this all wrong. You have already admitted that a object that is thrown up has a much larger velocity going up than it will have going down. If you think differently, than you are the one who should go back to school.
@toffa66 -- I am curious: How old are you? Really, I mean. And have you ever had a physics class?
It is amazing to me to think that someone would think that an object on a ballistic trajectory could possibly be going a different speed at the end of its flight than it does at the beginning.
And no. I have not "already admitted that a object that is thrown up has a much larger velocity going up than it will have going down." You keep pulling that from your imagination.
@toffa66 Dude have you ever heard of the law of conservation of energy? I don't know about you but here in Romania we learn about that at the age of 12. You tell me what happens with the difference in energy given by the difference in speed of the object? It gets eaten by the Moon? =))))
@toffa66 -- So before we continue, please define both "acceleration" and "speed" and then take some time to consider why the term "acceleration speed" is not a valid term.
(I see that you have a link to a video about calculus on your page. The answer to my question & request can be explained in just a very simple statement using the words that are used to define the principle of a derivative, so the answer should be very easy for you if you understand the simplest principles of calculus.)
@YaMumYaNanYaGran That is a tough question. On one hand you just have people who believe in stuff without evidence & on the other hand, you have Creationists. (See what I did there?)
This week scientists have confirmed that signals from seismic sensors left on the lunar surface by Apollo astronauts in 1971 have revealed that the Moon has a liquid core similar to Earth's.
Scientists at Nasa applied contemporary seismological techniques to the data being emitted from sensors placed by their colleagues during the U.S. space program's heyday.
@Synthetrix If that's true, what type of batteries do you tink would still work after 40 years ? My best guess is nuclear batteries ( nuclear pellet connected to and heats a thermocouple that produces a voltage ? )
In the 1970s an electric car was powered by a small nuclear engine so it might have been inspired by whatever is producing electric current on the Moon .
(probably you will flame me now, but hey i'm the one studying physics afterall, so unless you have the balls and take on the established physic laws with the people who work most with them, namly physics, please don't spread your bs anymore via the anonymous internet)
.there's nothing which would indicate anything abnormal. solely you sugesting that the dirt would fly farther, is plain bs. as you can see in the video, the dust is mainly thrown up, not much with a speed in horizontal direction, so why would it even fly "18ft" like you so exactly said, if it has no horizontal velocity ?
i mean sorry, but have you ever thought that through ? probably not, and if yes, i would like to hear your chain of thoughts that led you to your conclusion.
Awesome footage...luv it.For details, search for "Moon machines" here on utube-great DVD and it explains super how the LRV was developed and packed/atached to the LEM.
what is that thing he rides up to. the LEM? The rover looks twice the size of the LEM and the shadows at the end on the rover don't match the shadows in the mid-video phase. Ha Ha
@EGMAG That's just the point - It should not "float" at all, as there is no air to suspend it as there is on Earth. The dust behaves EXACTLY as you would expect it to do on the airless moon: it gets thrown up (higher than on earth) and then comes cleanly back down on a parabolic arc - EVERY LAST GRAIN OF IT. Impressive evidence for having been filmed in a vacuum! :-)
@eventcone cleanly back down on a parabolic arc <<
That's where your dirt wrong. Experts have done many comparative tests on this and the dirt should have rooster tailed and went up over 18 feet. A lot you DON'T know.
@EGMAG Well my response was directed at your statement that it should "float". However, it DID "rooster tail" didn't it? They even use that expression themselves. As to how high it should go that depends on the velocity at which it is accelerated upwards and that is constantly varying as the driver applies power. Got a reference for that "expert"?
You miss my main point though - it behaves EXACTLY as you would expect in a vacuum.
You have no basis for that statement. Why 18 feet. Why not 50 feet? Why not 100 feet? How do you pluck a number like that out of thin air? (Or should that be out of a vacuum?). :-) And why not 7 feet, which is about what we are seeing?
That Rover has just enough power (one horsepower according to Wikipedia) to journey a few miles over the surface in 1/6th gravity. It's not some hotrod 4x4. To make it any more powerful would have added weight that the LM could not carry.
@EGMAG rofl you obviously didn't think that through?
"With a wheel spinning in 1/6 g that dirt should fly over 18 feet."
how far the dirt flies has to do with how fast the wheels accelerates, right? taking into account, that the power of this vehicle is very low due to weight (and no need) issues (1 horsepower someone said), which translates into it's acceleration speed and the other factor, that there's less gravity which let's the dust fall down slower (has nothing to do with distance)
Without air resistance, the dirt would make a perfect parabolic arc. On Earth, it would only be parabolic for course gravel, but finer grains of sand and dust would be slowed down by the air, forming the rooster tail. You know very well that this video does not in any way show that the moon landing is real ---- it is just the opposite.
@EGMAG That is a valid, factual and obvious observational point per this official NASA video clip. Since the moon's gravitational force is approximately 83% less than that of Earth's, and since there is NO 'air' on the moon acting as resistance,' than ALL particles (feathers, minute stones, rocks) 'falling' to the surface of the moon should fall at a equal rate when free falling. And this also applies to "rooster tails." ☼♥☼
@racingracing All particles should indeed fall at an equal rate. You're right in attributing this to there being no air on the moon, but not to gravity being less than on Earth. Gravity determines what that equal rate should be. My main point was, that to the naked eye, the "particles" thrown up by the Rover's wheels do indeed appear to be falling at an equal rate, with no tendency to hang suspended in air as they would on Earth, just as you would expect if filmed in a vacuum.
@eventcone Now, let us consider the following simple experimental observation: a human being throwing (under hand throw) a round marble up with equal force here on Earth, and then on the surface of the moon. To keep this simple, let us agree that here on Earth ("100%" gravity), the marble reached a height of 10 feet from the point where the marble left the hand. Approximately, how high would it reach doing this on the moon ("15%" gravity)? This makes me wonder. ☼♥☼
@racingracing Using Newton's equations of motion, in 1/6th gravity (and ignoring the effects of air resistance on earth) that would be 6 times as high or 60 feet.
So if we apply that to our Lunar Rover's "rooster tails" and estimate that on the moon they are 7 feet high, the same power applied to the same wheels in the same dust, but ON EARTH (again ignoring air resistance), then on earth they would be 1 feet 2 inches high (7 feet / 6).
@EGMAG Nope. He said at an equal rate. But if something goes up higher, it will naturally take longer to come down. Keep putting 'em up, and I'll keep shooting 'em down. Until I get bored. ;-)
There are different ways to define words. Marriage for example has a LEGAL, MORAL, and RELIGIOUS definition. Well there are different ways to define PLANET as well, Pluto is no longer considered a "planet". For the purposes of human exploration of the cosmos I DO consider the moon to be another planet, it is a WORLD with enough gravity to hold people to its surface and with its own geography to be explored. I give exploring moons the same credo as planets.
How is it that the technology necessary for people to drive cars around on the moon predates even the simplest video games and personal computers, vcrs, the internet, cell phones, and CGI. That seems really backward. More logical sequence for me is those other things being created first then the first moon landing happening. No way a blue ray player can be more tech advanced than driving cars on the moon so why were there no blue ray players back then?
@Zurround100 What's the problem? It was just some light, open cars with electric motors. No advanced computers needed for that. The journey to the Moon was just a BIG rocket fired in a well known ballistic trajectory. Man could have landed on the Moon in the 50's if someone had put up the money.
@Zurround100 When technology in general is "less advanced", that doesn't always mean that you can't do things that are done with "more advanced" technology. It often just means that doing them is harder and more expensive. Therefore you need a bigger reason for doing them. Don't underestimate the Cold War as a HUGE driving force for Apollo (wars drive the development of technology). At least one senior Apollo astronaut saw the Moon Program as a Cold War battle that had to be fought and won.
Lunokhod I set down on the Moon on November 17, 1970, just a few months before NASA took possession of the first mission-ready lunar rover. When that first rover allegedly arrived on the Moon eight months later, in July of 1971, Lunokhod I was still traversing the lunar landscape.
This is really strange, a solid enough surface resulted by meteor impact covered by a think layer of dust, I guess that the impact happended when the lava was liquid; but the think dust layer, where is it come from?, beside; the astronauts take for known solidness of ground even on the hill and when they is driving around using the Rover. I think most of impacts happended when the surface was liquid. In despite of this, there isn´t evidence for fraud only there are theoretical inconsistencies.
@Leivinn20 the dust layer has come about from a billion or so years of constant meteorite and micrometeorite impact. These impacts cause dust, but also pack down the underlying regolith to very dense levels.
@krisdevalle : I don´t have a simulating program, but I think that obtain a surface as surface shown on videos, after a rain of meteor during billions of year is quite unlikely. The astronauts used drive Rover without pay attention where they were, even on the hills. Keep in mind, there are data from Moon subsoil on the sixties or seventies, the first data were collected by themselves.
@Leivinn20 Data about the surface of the moon was gathered from the 6 or so Ranger then the 4 successful Surveyor unmanned missions. The US sent quite a few probes to the moon to find out about the surface before they ever sent a manned mission.
@krisdevalle : As far as I know about subsoil features, know the features of subsoil using a sampling technique like that, it´s very difficult, over all if NASA used the starting premise the ground was formed by igneous processes and meteor impacts...the astronauts take for known the ground no matter where they are walking or driving the Rover, even no matter the speed of Rover...I think you argument is weak. They "played" hopping downhill on the hills....
@krisdevalle : Pay attention the soundtrack of video, the astronaut´s voice sounds quite sure, not even a little nervous. As far as understand the test was successful.
@Leivinn20 That's right - this was the 4th moon mission. Many of the astronauts used to be test pilots. It's their job to be sure, and cool, despite the situation. You wouldn't send anyone who would be scared or nervous.
That said, he probably was pretty nervous, but these guys are 'the right stuff' - they don't let their feelings show. It's this coolness that got them picked as Apollo astronauts.
@krisdevalle: They didn´t need to show their courage, only they should have said: take easy it, boys!, in first place I am going to check the solidness of ground, wait a few minute. I am common person, but do not blame the people who watch these videos and doubt about them.
@Leivinn20 You have taken his video out of context. This was close to the end of the mission. They had used the rover to travel to several different sites, and driven it quite responsibly. This final film was shot so the builders of the rover could see how it behaved when pushed to the limit.
@krisdevalle : In short: as far as what I can to observe on the video, the "feet" of landing gear were designed for soft surfaces. I can´t to observe evidences of previous explorations in that area. I am common citizen.
@Leivinn20 We can actually compare the size of the LM pads to the landing pads on the Surveyor craft, which were of comparable size, perhaps even smaller.
It's true that the dust layer on the moon is variable, but landing sites were chosen very carefully, and the pad size was also overengineered for that 'just in case' eventuality. Any engineer worth his salt will always try to overengineer (make the pads slightly larger than required) to avoid any disasters.
how did it get there???? your not gonna tell me that the rover came on that piece of shit in the background i dont care what origami you know didnt happen and now they tell us somthing cleaned up after us cause its not there anymore
I am not a moon or space guy...but someone told me to watch this, I have to ask....is this a gas power motor? if so, where is it getting the air to make the rover run? gas and air fuel mix have to be tune......does the moon have air?
@TheJomogogo they did pollute the moon they left the flag or maybe that would come under littering, although i personally dont think they went the van allen belt springs to mind.
yeah dude the van halen belt thingie would have given them supar powers like teh fantastic four but it didn't so that proves it was fake good thinking queer
I just can't help but wonder, Why did he seemingly disappear for so long from the media? Even some of the stuff he says in the videos that are out their. No question he went to the moon, I just wonder if what they release to the media is the real deal? Well, I do know the media has been controlled by elitists since the early 1900's, its a fact, look it up. Rockafella, J.P. morgon, Ben bernake, and all the elitist scum fucks who are enslaved by their own agenda's.
so you think the US actually loaded up this dune buggy and rocketed to the moon and landed with this dune buggy and then packed up and hooked back up with the lunar orbitor and returned home - did this mission 5 times- with no accidents and no loss of life. and it was so easy. and yet we have not even attempted to go back. and with much better technology, we have blown up 2 shuttles ??
@nootaramus Three astronauts died in the Apollo 1 fire. Apollo 13 had an explosion of an oxygen tank on route to the Moon and the three astronauts almost didn't make it. Do you really not know history?
What's the problem? The buggy was folded and loaded on the lander. No problem. Also: It wasn't harder to "hook up" to the mothership orbiting the Moon than it is for the Shuttle to "hook up" to the space station today. No problems there either. And they landed on the Moon SIX times, not five but brought a buggy only on the last three trips.
The reason for not going back is purely economical. The taxpayers don't want to spend their money on Moon-trips, so NASA gets no budget for it.
Aha! PROOF! that the fake moon landings were actually FAKED! The faked moon landings NEVER ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE (like THEY want you to believe) - instead this MASSIVE HOAX was staged on the MOON ITSELF but made to look like a FAKE MOON LANDING ... THINK ABOUT IT people...imagine the billions of hours of time, manpower and effort & sheer bloody pointlessness involved in faking a moon landing - it NEVER happened so WAKE UP PEOPLE!! etc etc
So, this isn't the camera in the LEM and it isn't the camera on the rover (obviously)
makes ya wonder if they dragged two cameras around on the rover just to make this scene. (they didn't) It also makes ya wonder how they were transmitting this back to earth.
The Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio. To see a partial summary of the evidence of fakery, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". The summary is on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.
The Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio. To see a partial summary of the evidence of fakery, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". The summary is on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.
This has been flagged as spam show
Ad Onor del Vero l'uomo non è ancora andato sulla Luna !
Troverete le prove schiaccianti digitando su GOOGLE " WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON "
Se invece preferite continuare a credere che dodici astronauti americani sono stati sulla Luna, fate pure così ! - CONTENTI VOI CONTENTI TUTTI !! ( ...soprattutto quelli che vi hanno sonoramente turlupinati ! - AH ! AH ! AH ! AH ! )
Ciao a tutti dall'Italia e, se potete, cercate almeno di starmi bene !
Ettore
ettoremazza7 4 weeks ago
pipercub123456, Yes, I know there were 2 fakers, what I meant was who possesed and operated the movie camera, was it mounted or static and did it have a viewfinder?
thecubanism 1 month ago
Are you calling me, a devoted fan of the late Chris Hitchens and a dedicated opponent of religion a creationist?
thecubanism 1 month ago
Who is filming this with a film camera?
thecubanism 1 month ago
@thecubanism ..I only see one man in the Lunar Rover?? using our imagination, do you think it could be the other Apollo Astronaut doing the filming??..I believe, there were two that landed on the Moon at the same time???......Cheers
pipercub123456 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I lost a bet. I said that on the 40th aniversary of the moon landing they would point this powerful telescope to the moon and charge a dolar for letting people wacth the roover (and the flag) for one whole minute..
luizfernandomolina 1 month ago
Comment removed
luizfernandomolina 1 month ago
I love this conspiracy theory stuff .I heard that the two Kennedy boys were shot dead.Imagine that happening lol how silly .
Gookbuster1 2 months ago
it mustve been awesome to be them holy shit that looks fun!!!
Southwestairlines737 3 months ago
Bumped into this video and what do I find, shills and trolls. Not surprised, but I would rather see people discussing the rover, especially how much it looks just like a billion dollar dune buggy.
CNN911Fakes 3 months ago
Somebody actually got to do that....just imagine! Somebody actually gets to say to their grandchildren: "You know kid, there was a time when grandpa was drivin' around on the moon. No no, i'm serious!". Now, that's inspiring beyond belief!
aigg 4 months ago
man, i LOVE watching that dust fly around! so otherworldly!
ajiadicicco 6 months ago
Youtube is fantastic.
It's the only place someone could post a picture of a bunny rabbit, and within two days people are calling each other a - holes, communists and perverts.
billville111 6 months ago
@billville111 lol
luizfernandomolina 1 month ago
everyone knows the earth is flat, no such thing as the moon. FLAT EARTH SOCIETY REPRESENT
roflex2 7 months ago
It's like this. When we return to the Moon and visit the Apollo landing sites, these stupid hoaxer cunts will just say that the new stuff is fake too. If you took a hoaxer to the Moon to show him that it all really happened, he'd just say it was a drug induced hallucination. You cannot convince a moron of anything, I'm afraid.
Zebonka 7 months ago
@Zebonka When yuo visit the moon, please take a picture of the roover, will you?
luizfernandomolina 1 month ago
I think it's funny they're on the freakin moon and they're messing around in a rover. The freakin moon! Haha
korpse69 7 months ago
They see me rovin', they conspiracy theorin'
MarkArandjus 7 months ago 2
@ 18 secs. Watch the roving idiot approaching the fake and small model of the lander and the spray from the wheels going everywhere. When nausea admits everything was faked, and this shall happen soon, all Apollogists will wish for the ground to open up and them fall in. The Truth is out there......
Chev4206 7 months ago
@Chev4206
You can't even spell NASA right.
I like how the people who claim it's fake, and they know the truth, and they are smart are total morons.
Draknfyre 7 months ago
Why is there no dust cloud behind the rover when it spins up all that dry sand?
Unless the sand is wet!!! Wet sand wouldn't produce a dust cloud.
toffa66 9 months ago
@toffa66 Dust clouds float in the air. Air resistance keeps them airborne. There's no air on the moon.
The dust seems to rise really high and behaves as it would with that much gravity acting on it. It takes longer to return to the ground than it would on Earth and it also seems to kick up higher volumes of it too.
I've never seen this video before, it's pretty cool.
riggermortisify 8 months ago
@riggermortisify
Let me ask you this: How do you know by watching the video what 1.662m/sec^2 g looks like. You have never seen 1.662m/sec g before?
The only G you are used to looking at every day is approximately 10m/sec^2 g. There is a very big difference between 1.662m/sec g compared to 10m/sec g.
toffa66 8 months ago
@toffa66 You're right. Neither of us know what it looks like but I do know that it IS behaving differently. I don't really know how they could do that in a studio. A vacuum sucking from above the camera? I don't know. I could sit and work out it's acceleration in relation to the Rover's height maybe that'd help clear things up.
By the way I'm not trying to prove we went to the moon, I'll analyze the given evidence and then come to a conclusion. We could do the same on the salute vid.
riggermortisify 8 months ago
Of course they had to put in hillbilly music with the hillbilly astronaut. YEEHAW!!! That's what I call moonshine!
Kaikumach 9 months ago
Well bottom line, when a government has so many resources, it can lie so well that there's no way to see if they're telling the truth based on how they lie. So you have to consider the outside evidence yourself, such as talk of that radiation belt (forgot the name) and other things, so if you're wondering if they did it, don't look at the evidence they provided.
scerm 9 months ago
Yes this really is on the moon no doubt.But anyway,DISCLOSE NOW !!!
walitung 9 months ago
The lunar rover was only tested to go 8 MPH. When the astronauts here started romping around on it, they got it up to 11 MPH.
SeberHusky 10 months ago
It's looks like fun to be the first human to do "donuts" on the moon.
jgstargazer 10 months ago
The dirt fell much to quickly, there should be a fine dust hanging everywhere thqat rover went...we chose to build our spacestation in the vast emptiness rather than the moon, ever wonder why?
movadoband 10 months ago
Comment removed
inotnad 9 months ago
@movadoband Incorrect, In an environment with no atmosphere, all objects fall at the same rate. Example The famous hammer and feather drop. On the moon a speck of dust and a hammer will also fall at the same rate. If the moon had an atmosphere, then coupled with the one sixth the gravity of the earth that the moon has, dust as you say would be hanging everywhere. Man went to the moon.
inotnad 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
pretty amazing for 1960's tech. We could have used NASA's ingenuity to get a usable electric car in the 70's not the 2000's. The modern electric car needs a sizable battery. Where is the 1960's battery on the lunar rover? Seems to have a fair amount of torque, which is something we're just now getting with modern electrics. But you are right, none of that seems strange.
1234474 10 months ago
I want to live on the moon!
jpmetroidkiller96 11 months ago
Comment removed
dhudson369 1 year ago
@dhudson369 -- If you actually want to understand the thing you are whining about and calling "fake" you COULD look up the design of the thing.
I know it's really easy to say "OMG!!!11 taht dosn't make any cents!!" or whatever idiot crap people like to say. And it's a little harder to actually do some research and understand the thing, but it's not really all that hard.
There are even videos of the rover being deployed on the moon and of tests of it being stored and deployed back on Earth.
nesokretep 11 months ago
Nasa Nazi Disney Movies
Moon landings filmed on earth
fuckutube74 1 year ago
I love to see all the stars from the moon movie.
Make no sense.
Neither do the short movie.
kriskrosDK 1 year ago
fake
potrodsas 1 year ago
Lunar hoaxers are so insulting it hurts. With every piece of inane shit that comes out of their mouth they are disregarding the STAGGERING technological achievement that it was and the thousands of man hours put into the project by truly gifted individuals who we all owe a massive debt for the vast advancements in knowledge that was reaped from their labors.
Who is dumber? A lunar hoaxer or a Creationist? Very tough question.
YaMumYaNanYaGran 1 year ago 12
@YaMumYaNanYaGran
The Luna Hoaxer is dumber. You can disprove the hoaxer, yet they blindly go on thinking it was a hoax. As of yet, Creationism (Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being) cannot be disproved.
Moonstone255 1 year ago
@YaMumYaNanYaGran
Sorry to insult your non thinking brain dude. It is probably not normal for a person like you to ask questions about something that dont add up.
Let me ask you this: Why does the up and down motion of this rover not move with 1.662m/sec^2 g when its moving forwards over all these bumps? The rover should have a faster acceleration upwards then its acceleration downwards. Because there is 1.662m/sec^2 g on the moon. Why can't we tell the difference between up and down motions?
toffa66 8 months ago
@toffa66 The way I see the jumping up not being different is due to the weight they were carrying, also they couldn't bend their legs very well. Plus as soon as they do jump up gravity is still there pulling them back down so instantly they will deccelarate.
Also, the Rover's wheels are pushing it a lot faster than gravity can act so upward and downward motion would be decided by the floor's friction wouldn't it? Anyway, I may be wrong and have my common sense in a twist so I'm gonna go eat.
riggermortisify 8 months ago
@riggermortisify. Their weight compared to their strength is the clue to knowing what is going on. Their strength would be the same on the moon as on earth. But their weight on the moon would be 1/6 of their weight on earth. So jumping up should be the least of their problems. When they jump up, only gravity will reduce their acceleration upwards. So they should be able to accelerate upwards without any problems, but come down much slower.
toffa66 8 months ago
@toffa66 -- When a thing gets bounced off the surface (or an astronaut jumps off the surface, or sand or a rock or anything gets thrown off the surface) ... the time it takes to go up should be exactly the same as the time it takes to go back down.
Unless some other force acts on it while it is aloft, it needs to hit the ground with exactly the same speed as it left the ground.
nesokretep 8 months ago
@nesokretep
If you think a object uses the same time up as it would on its way down. YOU dont understand how gravity works. A object that is being "forced" up on the moon no matter what it is, can only be slowed down by gravity 1.662m/sec g.
That means the moons gravity must first slow the object down to zero velocity before the moons gravity starts to force the object down with 1.662m/sec^2. So velocity speed up can never be equal to velocity speed down.
toffa66 8 months ago
@toffa66 -- Go read a physics book.
Or take a simple high-school level physics class.
Learn basic physics SOMEWHERE before you make any more silly claims.
An object in a ballistic trajectory (one which receives an impulse up away from the surface with no atmospheric resistance) MUST hit the surface with the SAME speed as it began.
This is very basic Newtonian physics ... you know ... Newton, the guy who invented Calculus.
nesokretep 8 months ago
@nesokretep. Jesse's Christ. Where did you learn your physics?
When you throw something up into the air. Do you honestly think the speed you throw an object up with is equal to the to the force of gravity? I will tell you this as a fact; The acceleration speed you throw an object up with will be a lot greater then the acceleration speed it will fall with. But what do you know?
Go to school already and learn something useful so you can argue with knowledge.
toffa66 8 months ago
@toffa66 -- At least I know that "speed" and "force" are two different things.
Of course the "speed you throw an object up with" is NOT "equal to the force of gravity" because velocity is not even in the same unit of measure as acceleration, so there is no possibly way for them to be "equal" under any condition whatsoever.
So: Nothing I said suggests that the two things are the same.
I repeat my earlier recommendation:
Go read a physics book before you make any more stupid statements.
nesokretep 8 months ago
@toffa66 -- If you do want to continue this conversation, though, and if you want to learn something about the velocity at which something must go up and come down, I'll have to ask a few questions to see if you understand some basics:
Do you know what kinetic energy is? Do you know what potential energy is?
And do you have some idea as to how they both relate to gravity and an object on a ballistic trajectory?
nesokretep 8 months ago
@nesokretep. I was about to ask you the same question. But one hardly get enough space to complete what has to be said.
But please tell me how a projectile with a mass will fall with the same acceleration speed as it is being projected forward/upwards with?
I am eager to learn how that is possible.
toffa66 8 months ago
@toffa66 -- Did you even read my last reply? If so you apparently did not understand it.
There is no such thing as "acceleration speed."
Your question is absurd because the terminology you are using is invalid.
Once you indicate that you understand why this is the case, we can continue. Until then you are by default in effect admitting that you do not understand the most basic principles of mechanics.
nesokretep 8 months ago
@nesokretep. You dont know what i mean when i say acceleration speed?
Not my problem.
toffa66 8 months ago
@toffa66 -- What I said was that the term "acceleration speed" is invalid. If you do not understand why that is, then you are the one who is having a problem.
But again, for clarity about the terms, and in case you can follow, for objects on a ballistic trajectory:
(1) The absolute value of the vertical VELOCITY will be exactly the same at the beginning and end of the flight.
(2) The ACCELERATION of the object will be constant and in the same direction througout the entire flight.
nesokretep 8 months ago
@toffa66 -- An object on a ballistic trajectory (one that receives an impulse at ground level and is in free flight without air resistance untill its fall is complete) will travel in a parabolic arc.
The second half of the arc (the fall) will be an exact mirror of the first half of the arc (the rise).
At each and every altitude on its way down, it will be going with the same speed but opposite direction as it had at the same altitude on its way up.
nesokretep 8 months ago
@nesokretep. Listen up. A projectile that is traveling exactly horizontally in a vacuum. Will have the same start velocity (m/s) as its end velocity m/s.
But a projectile that has a vertical angle "above" horizontal, will slow down do to gravity.
If you aim the projectile in a angle below horizontal. The projectile will not slow down until it meats resistance.
toffa66 8 months ago
@toffa66 -- What you say is all true, although it is not very specific. And it does not in any way contradict anything I said.
The general rule is: When an object is in free-fall (which a "projectile" is) it has a constant acceleration applied to it equal to the acceleration due to gravity in its region of space. The acceleration applied to it is constant no matter which direction it is going. And, unless some other force is applied, it is the only acceleration the object has.
nesokretep 8 months ago
@toffa66 -- With that general rule in mind:
(1) Yes, if is traveling horizontally in a vacuum the horizontal component of its velocity remains constant until some other force is applied (or it hits something like the ground) but it will accelerate vertically toward the ground with the acceleration due to gravity.
nesokretep 8 months ago
@toffa66 --
Yes. Regardless of which direction it is angled, it will have a constant acceleration due to gravity. That acceleration will be down (toward the surface). So:
(2) If it happens to be traveling up, then the acceleration due to gravity will slow its upward motion until its upward motion stops. For its entire flight it will remain subject to the constant acceleration due to gravity and it will be pulled downward in a motion that is an exact mirror of its upward motion.
nesokretep 8 months ago
@toffa66 -- and (3) if it happens to start off going downward, then the constant acceleration due to gravity will add to the original downward component of its motion and speed it up on its way to the surface.
Is there some part of this that you think is wrong or that you think contradicts anything I said earlier?
If it starts off from the ground with a single impulse, it will travel up, and then arc downward and will eventually hit the ground at the same speed as its initial velocity upwards.
nesokretep 8 months ago
@nesokretep. Well i have something to say to (3). On the moon a object that is falling will ONLY accelerate with 1.662m/s^2. It dosent matter what its weight is. A hammer and a dust particle should hit the ground at the exact same time (if they are dropped at the same time).
Your upward velocity is wrong. It will not equal velocity down. Well; Unless the impulse makes the object leave surface with 1.662m/sec^2.
toffa66 8 months ago
@toffa66 -- Your thing you have to say to (3) is exactly the same as I have been saying. Any object in free-fall will be subject to acceleration due to gravity. That is the only acceleration it will be subject to. And it does not depend on the mass (or the weight) of the object. Acceleration due to gravity is 1.662m/s^2 near the surface of the moon. That is correct. Any object which is near the surface of the moon will be subect to that acceleration whether it is a hammer or a piece of dust.
nesokretep 8 months ago
@toffa66 -- But my upward velocity is not wrong.
An object that is given impulse away from the surface will be going a certain speed as soon as it leaves the surface. The height that it reaches will depend on the speed that it starts out with. As it flys, it will be subject to constant acceleraton of 1.662m/s^2 toward the surface. This acceleration toward the surface is constant whether the object is traveling up or down because the force applied by acceleration due to gravity is constant.
nesokretep 8 months ago
@toffa66 -- it will fly upwards until its acceleration in a downward direction overcomes its upward velocity and then it will start to move downward. The more impulse it receives when it leaves the ground the higher it goes. The higher it goes, the longer it is subject to acceleration due to gravity. So the higher it goes, the faster it is going downward when it reaches the surface. When it reaches the surface, it will be going the same speed downwards as it was going upwards when it started.
nesokretep 8 months ago
@nesokretep No it wont; unless the object is going up with 1.622m/sec^2. Only then will the velocity up be equal to velocity velocity down. There is a big difference in throwing something up against the force of gravity, compared to something falling down with the force of gravity.
toffa66 8 months ago
@toffa66 -- Never mind then;
Some day you might take a physics class and learn how things work.
Try to not argue too much against your teacher, thought.
He will e right and you will be wrong.
nesokretep 8 months ago
@nesokretep. I don't mind. I am not the one who has this all wrong. You have already admitted that a object that is thrown up has a much larger velocity going up than it will have going down. If you think differently, than you are the one who should go back to school.
toffa66 8 months ago
@toffa66 -- I am curious: How old are you? Really, I mean. And have you ever had a physics class?
It is amazing to me to think that someone would think that an object on a ballistic trajectory could possibly be going a different speed at the end of its flight than it does at the beginning.
And no. I have not "already admitted that a object that is thrown up has a much larger velocity going up than it will have going down." You keep pulling that from your imagination.
nesokretep 8 months ago
@toffa66 Dude have you ever heard of the law of conservation of energy? I don't know about you but here in Romania we learn about that at the age of 12. You tell me what happens with the difference in energy given by the difference in speed of the object? It gets eaten by the Moon? =))))
LHFX 8 months ago
@toffa66 -- So before we continue, please define both "acceleration" and "speed" and then take some time to consider why the term "acceleration speed" is not a valid term.
(I see that you have a link to a video about calculus on your page. The answer to my question & request can be explained in just a very simple statement using the words that are used to define the principle of a derivative, so the answer should be very easy for you if you understand the simplest principles of calculus.)
nesokretep 8 months ago
@YaMumYaNanYaGran You are......
Chev4206 7 months ago
....more intelligent and rational than you.
YaMumYaNanYaGran 7 months ago
@YaMumYaNanYaGran So, you can spell. But you're still a thick twat. Goodbye.
Chev4206 7 months ago
@Chev4206 Ok. Bye.
YaMumYaNanYaGran 7 months ago
@YaMumYaNanYaGran Lets opt with #3 BOTH!!
ccrg109 6 months ago
@YaMumYaNanYaGran It's usually the ignorant creationists that are the hoaxers.
MasterCheifX117 5 months ago
@YaMumYaNanYaGran That is a tough question. On one hand you just have people who believe in stuff without evidence & on the other hand, you have Creationists. (See what I did there?)
vozpit 4 months ago
@YaMumYaNanYaGran Lunar hoaxers and creationists are usually the same people.
BackInTheCage 4 months ago
@BackInTheCage Damn, I was just about to say that!
louielouie11224 4 months ago
I want to drive a buggy on the Moon.
junkers1337 1 year ago
This week scientists have confirmed that signals from seismic sensors left on the lunar surface by Apollo astronauts in 1971 have revealed that the Moon has a liquid core similar to Earth's.
Scientists at Nasa applied contemporary seismological techniques to the data being emitted from sensors placed by their colleagues during the U.S. space program's heyday.
Synthetrix 1 year ago 4
@Synthetrix If that's true, what type of batteries do you tink would still work after 40 years ? My best guess is nuclear batteries ( nuclear pellet connected to and heats a thermocouple that produces a voltage ? )
In the 1970s an electric car was powered by a small nuclear engine so it might have been inspired by whatever is producing electric current on the Moon .
dizzo95 1 year ago
@dizzo95 That is correct. The ALLSEPs are nuclear powered.
Synthetrix 1 year ago
@dizzo95 Solar panels. It wouldn't need much power.
riggermortisify 8 months ago
@dizzo95 WHAT are you talking about? that photo wasn't taken recently,
that was from 40 years ago it isn't running on its own now.
infowolf1 5 months ago
(probably you will flame me now, but hey i'm the one studying physics afterall, so unless you have the balls and take on the established physic laws with the people who work most with them, namly physics, please don't spread your bs anymore via the anonymous internet)
Esudao 1 year ago
.there's nothing which would indicate anything abnormal. solely you sugesting that the dirt would fly farther, is plain bs. as you can see in the video, the dust is mainly thrown up, not much with a speed in horizontal direction, so why would it even fly "18ft" like you so exactly said, if it has no horizontal velocity ?
i mean sorry, but have you ever thought that through ? probably not, and if yes, i would like to hear your chain of thoughts that led you to your conclusion.
Esudao 1 year ago
The pity is the USA will not be going back there anytime soon.
vv55sst 1 year ago
Awesome footage...luv it.For details, search for "Moon machines" here on utube-great DVD and it explains super how the LRV was developed and packed/atached to the LEM.
stevehislop 1 year ago
Must be so much fun on the moon jumping around in that gravity
Johfunu 1 year ago
Are there sworn affidavits by anyone who claims to have worked on a fake moon landing movie for NASA? NO.
Is there a single peer-reviewed technical paper that calls the authenticity of any part of the Apollo program into question? No
Are there some really ignorant people on YouTube? Yes
Synthetrix 1 year ago
what is that thing he rides up to. the LEM? The rover looks twice the size of the LEM and the shadows at the end on the rover don't match the shadows in the mid-video phase. Ha Ha
EGMAG 1 year ago
@EGMAG Well ya know, things do look smaller when they're further away. Did you never notice that?
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone smaller further <,
Oh yeah. Only this looks faker the further away.
EGMAG 1 year ago
dust speedily hit the ground instead of floating in 1 sixth gravity as it should. Believe your own eyes it is true. End of story?
EGMAG 1 year ago
@EGMAG That's just the point - It should not "float" at all, as there is no air to suspend it as there is on Earth. The dust behaves EXACTLY as you would expect it to do on the airless moon: it gets thrown up (higher than on earth) and then comes cleanly back down on a parabolic arc - EVERY LAST GRAIN OF IT. Impressive evidence for having been filmed in a vacuum! :-)
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone cleanly back down on a parabolic arc <<
That's where your dirt wrong. Experts have done many comparative tests on this and the dirt should have rooster tailed and went up over 18 feet. A lot you DON'T know.
EGMAG 1 year ago
@EGMAG Well my response was directed at your statement that it should "float". However, it DID "rooster tail" didn't it? They even use that expression themselves. As to how high it should go that depends on the velocity at which it is accelerated upwards and that is constantly varying as the driver applies power. Got a reference for that "expert"?
You miss my main point though - it behaves EXACTLY as you would expect in a vacuum.
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone
With a wheel spinning in 1/6 g that dirt should fly over 18 feet.
Fake. Why even the LRO fotos are fake. Most everybody knows that now. Keep it clean.
EGMAG 1 year ago
Comment removed
eventcone 1 year ago
@EGMAG Why?
You have no basis for that statement. Why 18 feet. Why not 50 feet? Why not 100 feet? How do you pluck a number like that out of thin air? (Or should that be out of a vacuum?). :-) And why not 7 feet, which is about what we are seeing?
That Rover has just enough power (one horsepower according to Wikipedia) to journey a few miles over the surface in 1/6th gravity. It's not some hotrod 4x4. To make it any more powerful would have added weight that the LM could not carry.
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone
I guess your stuck in the blackness dungeon of your own beliefs and will never escape to the light of truth.
EGMAG 1 year ago
@EGMAG Oh will no one save me from the darkness of science?! Damn you, Galileo! (The Church was right about you all along!).
Nice to see you have a sense of humour (I mean that!).
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone Oh will no one save me <<
Ahh. be it science is just another label on all the subjects involving the minds thought processes.
Without a sense of humor ["some times"], even Galileo would have lost his head.
Now applying this to fake moonmen; well it's just golshderned hilarious!
EGMAG 1 year ago
@EGMAG rofl you obviously didn't think that through?
"With a wheel spinning in 1/6 g that dirt should fly over 18 feet."
how far the dirt flies has to do with how fast the wheels accelerates, right? taking into account, that the power of this vehicle is very low due to weight (and no need) issues (1 horsepower someone said), which translates into it's acceleration speed and the other factor, that there's less gravity which let's the dust fall down slower (has nothing to do with distance)
Esudao 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eventcone
Without air resistance, the dirt would make a perfect parabolic arc. On Earth, it would only be parabolic for course gravel, but finer grains of sand and dust would be slowed down by the air, forming the rooster tail. You know very well that this video does not in any way show that the moon landing is real ---- it is just the opposite.
EGMAG 1 year ago
@EGMAG That is a valid, factual and obvious observational point per this official NASA video clip. Since the moon's gravitational force is approximately 83% less than that of Earth's, and since there is NO 'air' on the moon acting as resistance,' than ALL particles (feathers, minute stones, rocks) 'falling' to the surface of the moon should fall at a equal rate when free falling. And this also applies to "rooster tails." ☼♥☼
racingracing 1 year ago
@racingracing All particles should indeed fall at an equal rate. You're right in attributing this to there being no air on the moon, but not to gravity being less than on Earth. Gravity determines what that equal rate should be. My main point was, that to the naked eye, the "particles" thrown up by the Rover's wheels do indeed appear to be falling at an equal rate, with no tendency to hang suspended in air as they would on Earth, just as you would expect if filmed in a vacuum.
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone Now, let us consider the following simple experimental observation: a human being throwing (under hand throw) a round marble up with equal force here on Earth, and then on the surface of the moon. To keep this simple, let us agree that here on Earth ("100%" gravity), the marble reached a height of 10 feet from the point where the marble left the hand. Approximately, how high would it reach doing this on the moon ("15%" gravity)? This makes me wonder. ☼♥☼
racingracing 1 year ago
@racingracing Using Newton's equations of motion, in 1/6th gravity (and ignoring the effects of air resistance on earth) that would be 6 times as high or 60 feet.
So if we apply that to our Lunar Rover's "rooster tails" and estimate that on the moon they are 7 feet high, the same power applied to the same wheels in the same dust, but ON EARTH (again ignoring air resistance), then on earth they would be 1 feet 2 inches high (7 feet / 6).
eventcone 1 year ago
@racingracing
Cool. not higher but to a much much greater distance.
EGMAG 1 year ago
@racingracing ALL particles (feathers, minute stones, rocks fall at a equal <<
CORRECT; SO boot dirt from the jump salute should rise and fall with the astro and it does not.
EGMAG 1 year ago
@EGMAG Nope. He said at an equal rate. But if something goes up higher, it will naturally take longer to come down. Keep putting 'em up, and I'll keep shooting 'em down. Until I get bored. ;-)
eventcone 1 year ago
There are different ways to define words. Marriage for example has a LEGAL, MORAL, and RELIGIOUS definition. Well there are different ways to define PLANET as well, Pluto is no longer considered a "planet". For the purposes of human exploration of the cosmos I DO consider the moon to be another planet, it is a WORLD with enough gravity to hold people to its surface and with its own geography to be explored. I give exploring moons the same credo as planets.
Zurround100 1 year ago
How is it that the technology necessary for people to drive cars around on the moon predates even the simplest video games and personal computers, vcrs, the internet, cell phones, and CGI. That seems really backward. More logical sequence for me is those other things being created first then the first moon landing happening. No way a blue ray player can be more tech advanced than driving cars on the moon so why were there no blue ray players back then?
Zurround100 1 year ago
@Zurround100 What's the problem? It was just some light, open cars with electric motors. No advanced computers needed for that. The journey to the Moon was just a BIG rocket fired in a well known ballistic trajectory. Man could have landed on the Moon in the 50's if someone had put up the money.
YDDES 1 year ago
@Zurround100 When technology in general is "less advanced", that doesn't always mean that you can't do things that are done with "more advanced" technology. It often just means that doing them is harder and more expensive. Therefore you need a bigger reason for doing them. Don't underestimate the Cold War as a HUGE driving force for Apollo (wars drive the development of technology). At least one senior Apollo astronaut saw the Moon Program as a Cold War battle that had to be fought and won.
eventcone 1 year ago
Lunokhod I set down on the Moon on November 17, 1970, just a few months before NASA took possession of the first mission-ready lunar rover. When that first rover allegedly arrived on the Moon eight months later, in July of 1971, Lunokhod I was still traversing the lunar landscape.
xtiml 1 year ago
This is really strange, a solid enough surface resulted by meteor impact covered by a think layer of dust, I guess that the impact happended when the lava was liquid; but the think dust layer, where is it come from?, beside; the astronauts take for known solidness of ground even on the hill and when they is driving around using the Rover. I think most of impacts happended when the surface was liquid. In despite of this, there isn´t evidence for fraud only there are theoretical inconsistencies.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 the dust layer has come about from a billion or so years of constant meteorite and micrometeorite impact. These impacts cause dust, but also pack down the underlying regolith to very dense levels.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@krisdevalle : I don´t have a simulating program, but I think that obtain a surface as surface shown on videos, after a rain of meteor during billions of year is quite unlikely. The astronauts used drive Rover without pay attention where they were, even on the hills. Keep in mind, there are data from Moon subsoil on the sixties or seventies, the first data were collected by themselves.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@krisdevalle . I mean: there are NOT data from Moon subsoil on the sixties or seventies, the first data were collected by themselves.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 Data about the surface of the moon was gathered from the 6 or so Ranger then the 4 successful Surveyor unmanned missions. The US sent quite a few probes to the moon to find out about the surface before they ever sent a manned mission.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@krisdevalle : As far as I know about subsoil features, know the features of subsoil using a sampling technique like that, it´s very difficult, over all if NASA used the starting premise the ground was formed by igneous processes and meteor impacts...the astronauts take for known the ground no matter where they are walking or driving the Rover, even no matter the speed of Rover...I think you argument is weak. They "played" hopping downhill on the hills....
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@krisdevalle : Pay attention the soundtrack of video, the astronaut´s voice sounds quite sure, not even a little nervous. As far as understand the test was successful.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 That's right - this was the 4th moon mission. Many of the astronauts used to be test pilots. It's their job to be sure, and cool, despite the situation. You wouldn't send anyone who would be scared or nervous.
That said, he probably was pretty nervous, but these guys are 'the right stuff' - they don't let their feelings show. It's this coolness that got them picked as Apollo astronauts.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@krisdevalle: They didn´t need to show their courage, only they should have said: take easy it, boys!, in first place I am going to check the solidness of ground, wait a few minute. I am common person, but do not blame the people who watch these videos and doubt about them.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 You have taken his video out of context. This was close to the end of the mission. They had used the rover to travel to several different sites, and driven it quite responsibly. This final film was shot so the builders of the rover could see how it behaved when pushed to the limit.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@krisdevalle : In short: as far as what I can to observe on the video, the "feet" of landing gear were designed for soft surfaces. I can´t to observe evidences of previous explorations in that area. I am common citizen.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 We can actually compare the size of the LM pads to the landing pads on the Surveyor craft, which were of comparable size, perhaps even smaller.
It's true that the dust layer on the moon is variable, but landing sites were chosen very carefully, and the pad size was also overengineered for that 'just in case' eventuality. Any engineer worth his salt will always try to overengineer (make the pads slightly larger than required) to avoid any disasters.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
Redneck astrnonauts !
Josh17bass 1 year ago
I see something I don't understand! It must be fake!!!!
keratacon 1 year ago
what will happen if we bought some Ferraris on the moon surface? will it be too fast?
malaysianmetalhead 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Neil Armstrong punch
music4dude 1 year ago
Comment removed
music4dude 1 year ago
how did it get there???? your not gonna tell me that the rover came on that piece of shit in the background i dont care what origami you know didnt happen and now they tell us somthing cleaned up after us cause its not there anymore
TestTheAcid 1 year ago
@TestTheAcid
yeah it's still there the LROC took pictures of it, you must have missed that it only happened a year ago
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
@TestTheAcid -- Do you mean you haven't seen tne videos of how the rover was stored in the LM? Amazing.
Yes, it DOES fit aboard the LM.
Quit being an idiot and actually attempt to understand something about what you're talking about.
nesokretep 1 year ago
All that research and work and they come out with a rover with bad understeer.
shananagans5 1 year ago
I am not a moon or space guy...but someone told me to watch this, I have to ask....is this a gas power motor? if so, where is it getting the air to make the rover run? gas and air fuel mix have to be tune......does the moon have air?
REDTEAM22003 1 year ago
@REDTEAM22003 Haha no it's battery powered :)
ohedd 1 year ago
@REDTEAM22003
It's powered by batteries.
They didn't want to pollute the moon air dumbass.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
@TheJomogogo lol funny shit air lol i just seen a fuel can been thrown on another vid in a vacuum funny engine
TestTheAcid 1 year ago
@TheJomogogo they did pollute the moon they left the flag or maybe that would come under littering, although i personally dont think they went the van allen belt springs to mind.
ZombiesAreLove 1 year ago
@ZombiesAreLove
yeah dude the van halen belt thingie would have given them supar powers like teh fantastic four but it didn't so that proves it was fake good thinking queer
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
I just can't help but wonder, Why did he seemingly disappear for so long from the media? Even some of the stuff he says in the videos that are out their. No question he went to the moon, I just wonder if what they release to the media is the real deal? Well, I do know the media has been controlled by elitists since the early 1900's, its a fact, look it up. Rockafella, J.P. morgon, Ben bernake, and all the elitist scum fucks who are enslaved by their own agenda's.
monkeyjoe9 1 year ago
The background music is of cowboy
Swainarayan 1 year ago
so you think the US actually loaded up this dune buggy and rocketed to the moon and landed with this dune buggy and then packed up and hooked back up with the lunar orbitor and returned home - did this mission 5 times- with no accidents and no loss of life. and it was so easy. and yet we have not even attempted to go back. and with much better technology, we have blown up 2 shuttles ??
nootaramus 1 year ago
@nootaramus Three astronauts died in the Apollo 1 fire. Apollo 13 had an explosion of an oxygen tank on route to the Moon and the three astronauts almost didn't make it. Do you really not know history?
WTZ007 1 year ago
@nootaramus
What's the problem? The buggy was folded and loaded on the lander. No problem. Also: It wasn't harder to "hook up" to the mothership orbiting the Moon than it is for the Shuttle to "hook up" to the space station today. No problems there either. And they landed on the Moon SIX times, not five but brought a buggy only on the last three trips.
The reason for not going back is purely economical. The taxpayers don't want to spend their money on Moon-trips, so NASA gets no budget for it.
YDDES 1 year ago
god that would be fun. driving a car on the freakin moon. to be one of the few humans to actualy get to do that.
creamyfilling102 1 year ago
Aha! PROOF! that the fake moon landings were actually FAKED! The faked moon landings NEVER ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE (like THEY want you to believe) - instead this MASSIVE HOAX was staged on the MOON ITSELF but made to look like a FAKE MOON LANDING ... THINK ABOUT IT people...imagine the billions of hours of time, manpower and effort & sheer bloody pointlessness involved in faking a moon landing - it NEVER happened so WAKE UP PEOPLE!! etc etc
thedarkarse 1 year ago
@thedarkarse You are too stupid to insult... think about reading what you have just wrote before you post next time
chAse734 1 year ago
@chAse734
Yeah OK but don't please don't give me detention.
thedarkarse 1 year ago
Ha! This clip proves that moon landings were faked! How can we hear the music if there is no air?
(for the humor impaired, i'm not serious here)
tdsfan1 1 year ago 2
@tdsfan1
"before they got back to the Lunar Module"???
So, this isn't the camera in the LEM and it isn't the camera on the rover (obviously)
makes ya wonder if they dragged two cameras around on the rover just to make this scene. (they didn't) It also makes ya wonder how they were transmitting this back to earth.
TheRisenstar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio. To see a partial summary of the evidence of fakery, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". The summary is on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.
Also, do a YouTube search on "MarsFaker".
Cosmored 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio. To see a partial summary of the evidence of fakery, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". The summary is on page 15. It's the 7th post from the top.
Also, do a YouTube search on "MarsFaker".
Cosmored 1 year ago
Moon Hoax Retards.
What a group of morons.
The highest form of gullibility known to mankind.
Butt stupid.
LindaStevensBZ 1 year ago
Go back to Italy. We only want intelligent people in our country. Namaste.
Beamshipcaptain 2 years ago
Its fake the dust is pressure piling behind the wheel even on the flat. You only get that in air....End of
guesser7 2 years ago
@guesser7
I don't see that at all. Neither do you.
End of story.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago 5
This video really proofs the moonlandings! :)
Look at the dust, how high it rises in the "air".
And watch the car how it jumps in the end of the video! That's only possible with low gravity - moon's gravity.
MMSchlenk 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lunar recon orbiter has photographd all the apollo landing sites one can see the soil on the moon that was disturbed by the astronauts.
That/those pix destroy the hoax baloney
The landings were real
runnermonkey 2 years ago