nop l got better things to do....... like....... watching videos of the ISS in a massive waterpool(with a plastic dummy earth) at JSC surrounding by hidden black scubadivers throwing air bubbles and actornuts who pretend to performs spacewalks at 286 miles above the Earth's surface....wish you were here...we're just two lost soul swimming in a fish bowl year after year...and did you get you to trade your heroes for ghosts ?...do you think you can tell ?
@robertk131 You can't seem to resist making a fool of yourself. This comment about the ISS shows that you haven't really seen much. I've watched many videos of astronauts in the ISS. NASATV puts them on the Internet regularly. You know, like half-hour interviews where astronauts are floating around weightless.
Are you all straight on Sec. 102 f now?
You're like someone trying to bang his head through a concrete wall. Ooh, that hurt! Solution? Bang harder.
Sec. 102. (f) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the unique competence of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in science and engineering systems be directed to assisting in bioengineering research, development, and demonstration programs designed to alleviate and minimize the effects of disability.
@guineapiggyman Fair question. It's not blowing in the wind. It's bouncing up and down because of the rover's movement. Sometimes it hangs in the up position.
Do you know what kind of people work at NASA? Do you actually think that none of them would have noticed this if it was fake? Or did you figure that you were the only person in 40 years who was smart enough to notice this?
@NasaCriminals Phil Plait has a PhD in astronomy. You have a PhD in internet trolling. Looks like you're the dumb one. So the hoax managed to fool Plait and the ENTIRE scientific community (find one, ONE scientist in a relevant field who thinks the moon landings were faked), but you and your hoax head buddies who've decided to make trolling and pseudo-research into 'conspiracy' have not been fooled? Wow, I'm impressed! Not. Hoax nuts, why are you phonies so dumb?
Great vid, I did doubt the landings I have to say, sorry but I did, mainly due to misleading documentaries, it was like being told about Santa again. I also still have several doubts due to small things that just look wrong to me, also the footage of Neil, Buzz and Collins purportedly putting the transparency on the window? When the astronauts are show it they can't get out of the room quick enough. I want to believe, I do, but I have questions, great video very compelling. cheers Peace.
@outofthisswirled Anything you see which looks wrong is more likely based on just not knowing that it should look like. I find this happening a lot. I've even experienced it myself, but with more thought or some investigation, I discover that it was my bias that was wrong.
There was no transparency. Sibrel shows only the portion of the Apollo film where he can get away with making that claim. Omitted portions clearly show that it could NOT have been a transparency. Go figure!
@Astrobrant2 I was wanting to ask someone the question is this really new film or is it older film that was previously released that folks could have doctored. Here are a couple of questions i have maybe u can help me with.
What was the shuttle mission where they said they saw white lights going through the capsule even with their eyes closed is this apocryphal too? As when questioned an astronaut changed his story to say maybe he saw them I forget which astronaut., which seemed odd. Cheers
@outofthisswirled Re. "new film"... I'm not sure what you mean. The original film was taken during the mission, developed back on earth as soon as they returned, and since then has been made into video and duplicated many times over the years. What part may have been doctored, in your opinion?
@Astrobrant2 I mean the film with the supposed transparency incident was this original already viewed footage that was doctored to look like a new film? You know ,was anything shown not seen by the public before images of the 3 astronauts or could these have been massed together from films out in the PD that were cobbled together to look like new footage with this supposed faking scene added? I have no idea, as I have not seen most or all footage. cheers
@outofthisswirled Sibrel flat-out lied when he said that video was classified and not viewed by the public. It was broadcast to the whole planet on television at the time it was made.
Other videos show the parts where the earth is seen being zoomed out and going completely out of the frame of the window. This, of course, shows what a bald-faced liar he was, to have deliberately cut out those parts.
@Astrobrant2 I haven't seen this video your referring to, it would be nice to, is it on here anywhere or on the nasa site? I like your vids, they are very compelling and evince things I didn't understand before that looked hokey. I have to say though I am still not 100% I will be when I see 3rd party pics from China or Russia, I know this makes me sound like a crazy who thinks we will explode if we travel at over 30mph and a flat earther etc but I can't help it now, which is a shame.
@outofthisswirled Any time you are asking legitimate questions and listening to the answers, nobody should think you're crazy.
If you bump into any head-scratchers, let me know. The bottom line is that there has never been one shred of evidence which casts any doubt whatsoever on the authenticity of Apollo. All there has been is the occasional amateur, ill-informed, ill-motivated, ego-driven conspiracist wannabe who makes outlandish claims.
@outofthisswirled Re. "white lights"...I don't know of a shuttle mission where astronauts saw these flashes. Some Apollo astronauts say they saw them. I'm not aware of any who changed his story. They were presumed to be the result of an occasional high energy particle going through the eye.
Obviously some people wouldn't believe if you took them to the moon and showed them the rover(!), but I wonder if it's possible, despite the distance, to pick up at least some changes to Mt Hadley as the rover transverses? Side by side first frame/last frame?
@notneilarmstrong It might work. I though about doing that, but never got around to it. There are lots of still shots of Hadley from different locations, though, which do show some differences.
I think it's a real shame that such a well made and interesting video is wasted on people that just make largely laughable CT comments. imo, We should just be in awe of such a wonderful achievement in human history and enjoy the ride.
@ianman6 DJ100 has been blocked on my channel. He is just another incarnation of monkey-man. The only way to deal with him is to block him, ignore him, and starve him of all the negative attention he craves.
Then he'll start a new channel, as he has done numerous times before, and make several thousand nasty remarks with that one until he is blocked/ignored/starved into oblivion again.
@Astrobrant2 I figured he was pure, unadulterated troll. He's perhaps worse than stalkervision, though in more of an over-the-top and actually less pernicious way. Too bad I won't get to hear his response to my question, I'm sure it would have been amusing. Hoax pushers typically offer pseudo-skeptecism (read: ignorance) and anomaly hunting, woven with a story of six-degrees-of-NASA, while ignoring strong positive evidence. Yet mysteriously they can't provide positive evidence for their claims.
@Astrobrant2 I think a 'strategy' (as though it were needed beyond the proof positive already presented) for debunking the hoax theory is to let the proponents do it themselves. They reject or 'explain away' evidence in typical conspiracy theory fashion (it was all faked), and also reject any correction of their perceived 'anomolies' (which never are). Yet to make their case, they need to explain how this evidence was faked, and they can't. They only offer internally inconsistent ad hoc stories.
@ianman6 Some of my videos are based on the theme that what they are using as evidence actually debunks their own claims.
I have often questioned them along the lines of, 'Let's suppose this was faked. Then why would the shadow...?" Etc. They never seem to have an answer. I also attack their claims on the grounds of "Why in the world would NASA do that?" The only answer they seem to come up with is that NASA people are stupid while hoax nuts are smart. That's a bit of a hard sell.
@Astrobrant2 Well the hoax pushers definitely display severe cognitive dissonance. NASA is smart enough to put together an elaborate hoax, after all, but dumb enough to supposedly leave behind glaring evidence of it. I asked one about the angle of the shadows proving there were two lights sources. I asked "Why aren't there two shadows then?" His response (verbatim): they were airbrushed out. Right, so they detailed that but neglect to align the shadows in post-processing? Yeah I buy that.
@Astrobrant2 This one named Foos-something or other, upon being asked to explain how they faked the weather patterns on the Earth and where such a large studio would be for filming the 'LRV sequences', responded only this: "It doesn't matter how they faked it, they just did. I bet it's easy with billions of dollars. I don't have to explain how, I just have to prove they did." I think that speaks for itself, and just about summarizes the entire moon hoax claim.
@guineapiggyman No, there isn't. All the 'evidence' ever presented is only because people like are dumb but make the mistake of thinking you're clever (which makes you, in fact, dumber). The real proof of that is in your last statement wherein you talk about the flag blowing in the wind. You're right, there is no wind. And he flag only waves after it gets touched. It's called kinetic transfer. If you are still on the flag waving bit, which most hoax nuts have abandoned, you are lost.
@ianman6 who. when did i EVER mention a flag?? i said the rover FLAP was blowing up and down. but if you cant tell the difference between the words 'flag' and 'flap', then youve got bigger problems than me..... (btw, the evidence i have about the moon landing is nothing youve ever seen before. i guarantee it.)
@guineapiggyman Flap or flag, your argument is still that it is waving when it shouldn't. It isn't. It moves due to kinetic transfer, and you either know this and are simply lying or you are that stupid. And since you have this 'never before seen' evidence, let's see it! I'm so excited! By the way, how do you know what I have and have not seen? I GUARANTEE you will present nothing that is new or worthwhile, how about that?
@ianman6 ok, so basically now, whatever i present, you will say youve already seen, regardless if you have or not. second, did you just learn that phrase, kinetic transfer? is that what theyre teaching you in middle school this week? nice! make sure you pay full attention
@guineapiggyman Kinetic transfer, the transfer of kinetic energy from one object to another via physical contact. Yes, I did learn it in middle school. Apparently you missed that lesson. It's pretty basic. That's ok, you'll catch up in remedial. And if you present genuine new material, I'll say so. I haven't seen anything new in years. So, once again, where is this supposed 'never-before-seen' stuff? Go on, enlighten me. Or are you just going to refuse and pretend I won't accept it anyway?
@guineapiggyman I don't get it. Are you saying you have a PhD? Or that people with PhDs who accept the truth of the Apollo moon landings need remedial? And what does this have to do with America? You know what, never mind. You still haven't provided any proof or evidence of your claims despite your proclamation that you have some that I've 'never seen before', and instead you just keep talking out of your ass. Just as I predicted: full of shit you are.
@guineapiggyman So which is it? Do you have a PhD, or any other degree? Or not? Are you 18, 34, or 37? It's impossible to tell by your comment history since you are a troll in pure form. Busted...
@guineapiggyman That's America? Hundreds of lunar samples have been examined by top scientists all over the world. Many hundreds of peer reviewed papers have been written on them and thousands of other scientists, (again, all over the world), have read them. Not one has ever found anything that would undermine the authenticity of those samples. The same goes for all the photographic evidence.
So you are dismissing the whole's world's scientific community, out of hand.
@Astrobrant2 The other part about wires, is you can see the antenna on his pack, moving with the direction of the pack as he moves about the LRV. Impossible if it's supposed to be a wire supporting him to give an illusion of reduced gravity. I don't need to say it, but am going to anyway: hoaxers are morons!
@Astrobrant2 never said that they NEVER got rocks from the moon. i just said they didnt put men there. did you know that the moon rocks have THE SAME composition as on earth, because both were made from the same elements around the same time? so it would be very easy for NASA to give all these scientists regular rocks. whos gonna know? OR MAYBE THEY GAVE THEM THE ROCKS THAT NATURALLY GOT HERE FROM THE MOON, AND LANDED IN THE ARCTIC. do some homework, hun
@guineapiggyman Humans and rats have the same composition, too. A geologist can tell the difference between moon rocks and earth rocks like a biologist can tell the difference between humans and rats.
When you people get all smart-assed like that, it stings a lot worse when you get debunked. Clearly you just picked this tidbit up from some other equally ill-educated hoax nut.
Lunar meteorites on earth weren't identified as such until several years AFTER Apollo.
@guineapiggyman Did you know that rocks on earth are beaten by wind erosion, water erosion, and oxidation from the air? So If you have a moonrock from an airless moon, it couldnt possibly be confused for an weather ravaged earthrock by any geologist over the age of 4?
Hoax retards never think of the obvious. Cause not only are none of you geologists, or anything else that works for a living, very few of you are over the mental age of 4 ;)
@SpreadingtheMuse wooooww. lol. you...youre talking about almost all rocks! yes!, im talking about rocks that are in siberia, with almost petrifying qualities, and arent in water, sand, wind, etc. ya know, kinda like how we find intact mammoth bones with almost no wear (and those are hundreds of thousands of years old! i must be a pretty smart '4', considering having gone to college and studied physics and music, then! ;) (sheeple...)
@guineapiggyman Why would moon rocks away from atmospheric and active geological conditions be "petrified?" You're just cut and pasting big words again ;)
ANY rock found in ice or water or air would have freezing expansion damage, heat extremes damage, and oxidation damage, even from something as little as random H+ and OH- ions. Which the moon does not have.
@SpreadingtheMuse i didnt say they were petrified, i said they were in petrifying conditions. (you do know a rock cant be petrified, right? only living organisms can). and you do know only soft rocks go thru freezing cracks, right? (god i hope so):- yeah i cant get enough cut and paste. heres some other big words i just found on google to cut and paste: supermassive blackhole; antidisestablishmentarianism; dog; cat; marshmallow (ooooh thats a good one!) lol. stop trolling, kid
@guineapiggyman In other words, you've run out of talking points and are backpedalling to save face ;)
You didnt consider that Earth rocks would be oxidized while moon rocks couldnt be
You didnt consider that Earth rocks would have freezing and erosion damage while moon rocks would not.
We're really thrilled that you think parroting a dork webpage's talking points make you sound clever, but SOME of us actually passed high school science. A few of us even TAUGHT it ;)
@SpreadingtheMuse explain how im backpedaling. PLEASE i would LOVE to know. im only clarifying my position, because you seem to need everything in lamens terms. moon rocks would be WAY more oxidized than you think, because theres no atmosphere there, its open to the suns flares and radiation, WHICH CONTAINS LOTS OF OXIDIZING COMPOUNDS. jesus christ, read a book for once, instead of trolling.
@guineapiggyman You tell people to read and look things up, but never give a link.
You dropped big names, claiming they back up your foolish claims about gamma rays, but somehow manage to never give a source.
Have you examined moon rocks yourself? Are you a geologist? Hundreds of peer reviewed papers have been written on moon rocks by top geologists. Do you know something they don't?
@guineapiggyman Backpedalling = Being challenged and weaseling out. Or Making a statement then refusing to explain it. You're guilty of both.
"way more oxidized." BULL There's nothing on a moon as oxidizing as being smothered in a 15 lbs per square in ATMOSPHERE. I'm talking about RUST dumbass. About O+ and OH- molecules that bind with it, not a retarded gamma ray.
Again, you're arguing with a science teacher. You dont know shit ;)
@guineapiggyman No refute for my (brilliant) oxidation explanation is a tactic admission that you know I'm right ;)
This would be so much easier if you had even a junior high concept of science. But as the other thread proved, you dont even know what the speed of light is ;)
@SpreadingtheMuse yeah, you didnt get a refutal right away, because unlike you, i HAVE OTHER THINGS IN MY LIFE TO DO. and calling yourself brilliant just makes you look like an obnoxious ass haha. and it really wasnt that brilliant, any idiot would agree with me (as you see by the number of thumbs up im getting on my earlier comment lol. ) 'nuff said.
Then maybe you should go do them instead of hanging around here, egotistically trying to sell people on this stupid Apollo hoax nonsense and making a fool of yourself by refusing to go look up the most elementary things that you pretend to be an expert on but actually don't know diddly-squat about.
@SpreadingtheMuse i never stalled once. i replied in full to everything you asked, then you started making things up, that i couldnt know the answer to, cuz THEY WERE MADE UP. dippy, hun
@guineapiggyman Talking about yourself and him and who said what and who is stalling, etc., is a waste of space. Make your arguments against Apollo or go away.
You have repeatedly demonstrated your total ignorance of science. Like most hoax nuts who comment on my videos, you have shown yourself to be absolutely clueless.
You're welcome to keep demonstrating that if you like.
@guineapiggyman Well, I suppose comments like that do give us a break from your persistent demonstrations of your scientific illiteracy and gullibility for dumb hoax claims.
Of course, it's totally off topic. If you want to get out of here, you could just leave.
@Astrobrant2 wow now im watching that movie where frodo has to find the highlander sword and use it to slay that big-horned demon guy from legend. ya know, whats the name of it? jeez i always forget (bad mammories, ya know)
@Astrobrant2 dude this lord of the kings movie is great. they just showed the guy from rudy. that was a good movie. he so wanted to play baseball to make his dad proud.
@guineapiggyman Lord of the Rings is good? Great. You're only ten years behind the rest of us ;) We'll expect your up to the minute review of Star Wars 77 next ;)
He had YT delete the video for exposing his lies but there are much more copies of the video around. ^_^ And here is a list of the google cache YT links where he claims to own a dozen or so university degrees:
@guineapiggyman guineapiggyman wrote: "dude this lord of the kings movie is great. they just showed the guy from rudy. that was a good movie. he so wanted to play baseball to make his dad proud."
Hey Clown Shoes, "baseball" is the game with bases and a bat. Pretty bad when you think that football is called baseball!
@guineapiggyman You do some homework, any rocks from the moon that are found on Earth are Meteroites and a such will be heated and melted by entering the Earths atmoshere, I think any geologist would spot that easily, also Moon rocks found n Earth were not identified as such untill after the Apollo moon missions.
@Astrobrant2 I would advise against responding to @guineapiggyman. He is a pathological liar with severe self-esteem issues. Responding other than calling him out would simply feed his pathology. Note that I don't call him simply a troll (he is, of course), because his situation is actually far beyond this. /watch?v=PMjNb0maSkQ exposes the extent of his mendacity, though it isn't really worth watching honestly. Suffice it to say, he is an attention deprived kid in his mom's house.
Man you really think this was a proof of going to the moon?
what are we stupid morons? why is any of you moon landing supporters evidences so weak?
and the part about wires was totally irrelevant! it made me crack up. you shouldn't have changed the scene. anyway this ain't gonna last so long. the truth will always win
@Shayanpac It's lasted for 42 years despite the boneheaded efforts of people like you for the last 37 years. You have no idea what you're talking about, and what's worse, you KNOW you have no idea what you're talking about.
Now go ahead and make a claim against Apollo so we can all SEE how much you don't know.
@Astrobrant2 the media has been controlled by the government and there has never been a complete flow of information. that's why their lies lasted too long. right now thanks to the internet, their lies are coming out. that's why they desperately wanna censor it.
How much I know or don't know about Apollo is irrelevant to what I said. I said contrary to your statement this video is not a proof for going to the moon.
if u really regard this as a proof, u seriously need some education!!!
@Shayanpac This is just one video showing just one example which refutes just one hoax-nut claim.
You should inform all those people with real credentials, (the entire world's scientific and academic communities over the last 42 years), that they need to catch up with people like you. You can start with the hundreds of top geologists who have written many hundreds of peer reviewed papers on lunar samples they examined. I'm nobody.
@Astrobrant2 does existence of lunar samples on the Earth prove that man has been to the moon? some simple elementary robot could bring them over here. the evidences for the moon landing hoax are much stronger than your funny examples.
This movie has an artistic value though! maybe a good nominee for the Oscar!!!
@Shayanpac 840 pounds of lunar samples, (where the unmanned Soviet probe was only able to get a couple of ounces), about 15,000 EVA photographs, hours of video, two laser reflectors, 16 mm films, UV photography of the stars and earth, the Soviets tracking us, the total absence of any doubts by the many thousands of real experts all over the world in 42 years who have examined the evidence, and the total absence of ANY evidence suggesting fakery DO prove that we went to the moon.
@Astrobrant2 840 pounds of lunar samples !!! what the f..! u mean astronauts brought 400 kilograms of rocks! this definitely means that these samples (if what u sayin is true) are brought over here in several runs and yes! they can easily be taken by machines. u never seen that geology related machine which gets large samples from the depth of the ground? even a simple machine can do that dude.
@Shayanpac Well you get on your horse and prove they did it that way. Then you show how all that other stuff doesn't mean anything. In 42 years, only ill-informed amateurs like you have ever challenged Apollo and not one hoax claim has stood up to scrutiny.
We went to the moon. It is an irrefutable historic and scientific fact.
If a simple machine can do it, then humans could do it. Grow up.
@Shayanpac "heavier craft with almost 10 cm of aluminium shielding"
Well, at least you aren't saying six feet of lead. But just the same, I'd like to know where you got that information.
Making comments about scientific facts is a whole lot easier for me than it is for you because we DID go to the moon and the science contradicts all your claims.
as Bill woods (a highly qualified scientist and a space rocket engineer who has been granted high security clearance for a number of top secret projects and has worked on the Saturn 5 rocket , the Apollo launch vehicle) says:
"the walls of the craft were made as thin and as light as possible. almost no protection at all against solar radiation."
with aluminium shielding , the minimum requirement is a thickness of 10 cm all around the craft and there was no attempt to provide such protection.
@ytmoog There's a Bill Wood and a Bill Woods, both associated with the Apollo program. The one you're referring to was the language guy, right?
There is a YouTube video of an offbeat TV show interviewing a Bill Woods, claiming to have been an engineer at NASA. I think he is a fraud, using the other guy's credentials. I've seen pictures of the other two, and he's neither of them.
I can't find the video. Maybe Shayanpac will help us.
@Shayanpac I am asking you again, and so is Ytmoog: where did you get this quote? If it was from a YT video, I think I've seen it but I can't find it now. Was it from that "interview" by some British guy?
You sound like a real expert. Could this machine also set up passive and active seismic experiments?
"samples are brought here over several runs"
At the rate the Soviets could manage, it would take more that 2300 trips to bring back 840lbs - and the largest rock the Soviets brought back was about the size of a pea.
@BertieSlack didn't wanna get through this one but ok
Unlike the Apollo lunar samples, their Soviet counterparts show triboluminescence and non-oxidation, contain 6 to 9 times more Mercury (which should be uniformly distributed on the lunar surface)
orders of magnitude more molybdenum, wolfram, cadmium and silver, and have 50 times lower thermoluminescence sensitivity.
@BertieSlack Also, A. Dollfus and E. Bouell of the Paris Observatory found that unlike the NASA samples, the polarisation of reflected light from the Soviet samples corresponds to that from the Moon surface.
Geochemist Minoru Ozima of the Tokyo University discovered that the nitrogen-14/nitrogen-15 isotope ratio in the Apollo lunar samples is very different from that in the solar wind whose blasts drilled these atoms into the lunar soil.
@Shayanpac Yes, Bertie is right. You copied and pasted this. At least the hoax nut who wrote it admits, twice, that he hasn't done anything to verify it.
Absolutely pathetic. All you have proved is that you know how to cut and paste. Your comments are copied verbatim from a conspiracy website. None of the sources you cite doubt that the Apollo samples are genuine. Have you even read them? Of course not. The Apollo missions quite deliberately collected the widest range of samples they could - so of course there are differences with the very limited Soviet collection. Conclusion - you don't know what you're talking about.
@Shayanpac "the references were so strong I checked them out myself"
If you had really checked them yourself, you wouldn't have mis-spelled Ted Bowell's name. Who's E Bouell? OK - give us a quote from either source that casts doubt on the authenticity of the Apollo samples.
@Shayanpac There's more than one Bill Wood(s) associated with NASA. Which one are you referring to? I know where this is going to end up, but let's show the viewers, just for fun.
@ShayanpacThe references were to scientists who have written articles that hoax nuts misrperesent and quote-mine. It's a common practice among conspiracy theorists, political extremists, and religious fundies.
"that's what science is about. you shouldn't repeat doing what has already been done"
But to avoid embarrassment, you should follow those references in that quoted material and SEE what they said.
@Shayanpac According to articles I found in Geo Times and Space.com, the explanation is that shortly after the moon formed, before the formation of the earth's geomagnetic field, the solar wind blew some of the earth's early atmosphere away and some of it ended up hitting the moon.
They want to test this theory by comparing to samples taken from the far side of the moon. And if there is no difference, they'll doubt the current model for the formation of the solar system, not Apollo.
@Astrobrant2 You need evidences and proofs for what I say but you yourself present none. I told you by the way you 'reason' and talk I can tell that you are not a properly educated person. so you found an article in Geo Times heh? what article ? name it so we can read it as well
@Astrobrant2 Excuse me but your proof is also a copy from Nasa's archive isn't it? all science is about copying and there are rare inventions and discoveries.
@guineapiggyman There's a very high probability that EVERYTHING you think you know about Apollo has not only been seen by others who really KNOW this subject, but was debunked before you were born.
Very good video, I was wondering about navigating on the moon, obviously finding their way back to the LEM would be a simple matter of following their wheel tracks back, and I suppose they could also use landmarks to aid navigation, but was there any high tec way of navigating? after all getting lost would not bare thinking about
Nasa astronaut and scientist Brian Oleary who worked on the Fake Apollo Programme until 1967 said Nasa could have Faked IT
Jan Lundberg scientist from hasselblad responsible for the cameras for the fake apollo missions mocked Nasa when he said go ask Armstrong why he is standing in the spotlight
P Arnolds from Kodak who supplied the film for the cameras for the Fake Apollo Missions mocked Nasa when he said the astronauts had
@DeadJesus100 These have all been dealt with before and I'm sure you've seen them. O'Leary has stated that he was taken out of context and that he knows the missions were real. When a scientist is asked if they are 100% certain that something couldn't have been faked, most will say no. They avoid absolutes.
Lundberg was shown a lousy print of 5903 and didn't know why it looked so dark. So what?
Astronauts were trained for months on how to point and shoot.
@DeadJesus100 - NASA crackers? lol ...Crackers for blue cheese, I guess they didn't have a airport hanger (commonly spelled hangar) big enough to stage a mission to Uranus; but they did manage to put man on the Moon and we shouldn't need astroband2 to demonstrate this. Though, I am glad that he does.
@DeadJesus100 - NASA crackers? lol ...Crackers for blue cheese, I guess they didn't have a airport hanger (commonly spelled hangar) big enough to stage a mission to Uranus; but they did manage to put man on the Moon and we shouldn't need astroband2 to demonstrate this. Though, I am glad that he does.
@HucksterFoot - Correction - Replace astroband2 with Astrobrant2. :]
@jonathanjomen The helmet and suit design attempted to allow that kind of mobility. You just can't do this sort of thing without being able to look down. As shown in the video, it is sometimes necessary to look up, too.
This is one of the reasons those getups cost millions of dollars each.
Quote from site I found on this, there seem to be many with the exact same words.
search terms: apollo spacesuit head helmet
'Unlike Mercury and Gemini helmets, which were closely fitted and moved with the crewman's head, the Apollo helmet was fixed and the head was free to move within.'
That it is desireable to be able to look up and down is granted
@jonathanjomen The lower neck ring of the assembly was connected to the softer material of the suit, and as evidenced by the film clip, did allow some vertical mobility.
it is exactly the authenticity of the film which I doubt, because it shows things which we should not see.
At least you and me have ever seen this elewhere, to be accurate.
Regarding your doubt on what my sources implied - they explicitly mention that the head is free to move within the fishbowl helmet attached to the rigid upper torso part of the suit.
Which makes me fairly certain - obviously.
Your doubting does not manage to shake that very much.
"What I found so far is: Hard Upper Torso to which the fishbowl like helmet attaced."
Actually there is a flexible joint between the neck ring (which allows the helmet to rotate) and the hard upper torso. This allows the whole helmet plus outer visor assembly to flex back and forth as well as rotate.
I have a good images which shows the suit without the outer layers in which this is visible... shall I send it along?
as opposed to the fish-bowl like thing here, which would make moving the helmet along with the head unneccesary because they can see and turn head in all directions even though the helmet being fixed.
" doubts come from and are fueld by strange and never before or after seen things like this."
The reason it would not have been seen before is because the Apollo A7LB suit used from Apollo 15 onwards had this additional flexible joint between the helmet ring and the upper torso but the A7LA suit used on Apollo 11 to 14 did not.
The suit was continually updated by ILC to improve performance and flexibility during the missions. Would you like the images showing the modifications?
NASA Astronaut Armstrong the Liar said he never saw stars in space
"The sky is deep black when viewed from the moon as it is when viewed from cislunar space, the space between the earth and the moon. The earth is the only visible object other than the sun that can be seen"
Melville the Space Tourist said
"Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch black and seeing stars appear while it is daytime is absolutely
@DeadJesus100 Predictably, and oh so typically of your ilk, you didn't answer my question. The bottom line is that there is FAR less documentation of Melville's flight than of Apollo. You and your dozens of noxious, insulting sock accounts do nothing but discredit your whole side of this matter.
@DeadJesus100 Another insulting conspiracy theorist who thinks he can sell his position with "attitude" arguments like this. I guess you've been around long enough to know better than to make an actual claim, because by now you've learned that every one you can make has a very logical explanation and that virtually ALL claims against Apollo are revealed to have been the product of ignorance and conceit by amateur "twoof-seekers" with little or no relevant education, knowledge, or experience.
It's all Walt Disney BULLSHIT for all mankind
OWNED BY THE GOVERN MENTAL
robertk131 4 weeks ago
@robertk131 I don't suppose you're going to stick around and make your case against Apollo, are you?
Astrobrant2 4 weeks ago
@Astrobrant2
nop l got better things to do....... like....... watching videos of the ISS in a massive waterpool(with a plastic dummy earth) at JSC surrounding by hidden black scubadivers throwing air bubbles and actornuts who pretend to performs spacewalks at 286 miles above the Earth's surface....wish you were here...we're just two lost soul swimming in a fish bowl year after year...and did you get you to trade your heroes for ghosts ?...do you think you can tell ?
robertk131 3 weeks ago
@robertk131 You can't seem to resist making a fool of yourself. This comment about the ISS shows that you haven't really seen much. I've watched many videos of astronauts in the ISS. NASATV puts them on the Internet regularly. You know, like half-hour interviews where astronauts are floating around weightless.
Are you all straight on Sec. 102 f now?
You're like someone trying to bang his head through a concrete wall. Ooh, that hurt! Solution? Bang harder.
Astrobrant2 3 weeks ago
@Astrobrant2 ...va donc te faire foutre....toé....pis ta nasa de merde...pauvre imbécile va
robertk131 3 weeks ago
again government psy-op
NASA Act of 1958
"DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE''
Sec. 102. (f) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the unique competence of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in science and engineering systems be directed to assisting in bioengineering research, development, and demonstration programs designed to alleviate and minimize the effects of disability.
robertk131 4 weeks ago
@robertk131 Gee, that's a pretty nice goal. I saw some other conspiracist quote this, too. Just what do you think it's saying?
NASA *has* developed systems to assist the handicapped, just as the goal states. Your point?
Astrobrant2 4 weeks ago
@Astrobrant2
faking science and space exploration
robertk131 3 weeks ago
@Astrobrant2 is an Apollo Troll
A shill who get paid minimum wage defending the US Governments propaganda on youtube
DISNEY MOON LANDINGS
NasaCriminals 1 month ago
Comment removed
Laurelindo 1 month ago
Not to mention that the land features reflect sunlight back at the subjects in the frame.
MrSkunkwork100 2 months ago
why is that flap keeping blowing in the wind, upwards? there not wind or atmosphere on the actual moon
guineapiggyman 2 months ago
@guineapiggyman Fair question. It's not blowing in the wind. It's bouncing up and down because of the rover's movement. Sometimes it hangs in the up position.
Do you know what kind of people work at NASA? Do you actually think that none of them would have noticed this if it was fake? Or did you figure that you were the only person in 40 years who was smart enough to notice this?
Astrobrant2 2 months ago
@guineapiggyman But there is inertia and energy transfer on the "actual moon"
musicbruv 2 months ago
Apollo Disney 15 had no stars in Nasa's Disney Universe
TOY LEM
made of gold tin foil
The moon landings are the joke of history
Since the fake apollo missions no man has
ever been further than 350 miles from earth
that includes 2011
Pity the moon is 240,000 miles away
NasaCriminals 2 months ago
Astrobant2 the apollo troll
Why are you Phil Plait shills so dumb?
NasaCriminals 2 months ago
@NasaCriminals Phil Plait has a PhD in astronomy. You have a PhD in internet trolling. Looks like you're the dumb one. So the hoax managed to fool Plait and the ENTIRE scientific community (find one, ONE scientist in a relevant field who thinks the moon landings were faked), but you and your hoax head buddies who've decided to make trolling and pseudo-research into 'conspiracy' have not been fooled? Wow, I'm impressed! Not. Hoax nuts, why are you phonies so dumb?
ianman6 2 months ago
@NasaCriminals Make your case against Apollo or get lost. I have little tolerance for this kind of juvenile spamming.
Astrobrant2 2 months ago 2
thanks for sharing love seeing rover views and surface of moon
yourboycal 3 months ago
:) thank you for the acceptance........ty:)
andschannll 5 months ago
Great vid, I did doubt the landings I have to say, sorry but I did, mainly due to misleading documentaries, it was like being told about Santa again. I also still have several doubts due to small things that just look wrong to me, also the footage of Neil, Buzz and Collins purportedly putting the transparency on the window? When the astronauts are show it they can't get out of the room quick enough. I want to believe, I do, but I have questions, great video very compelling. cheers Peace.
outofthisswirled 5 months ago
@outofthisswirled Anything you see which looks wrong is more likely based on just not knowing that it should look like. I find this happening a lot. I've even experienced it myself, but with more thought or some investigation, I discover that it was my bias that was wrong.
There was no transparency. Sibrel shows only the portion of the Apollo film where he can get away with making that claim. Omitted portions clearly show that it could NOT have been a transparency. Go figure!
Astrobrant2 5 months ago
@Astrobrant2 I was wanting to ask someone the question is this really new film or is it older film that was previously released that folks could have doctored. Here are a couple of questions i have maybe u can help me with.
What was the shuttle mission where they said they saw white lights going through the capsule even with their eyes closed is this apocryphal too? As when questioned an astronaut changed his story to say maybe he saw them I forget which astronaut., which seemed odd. Cheers
outofthisswirled 5 months ago
@outofthisswirled Re. "new film"... I'm not sure what you mean. The original film was taken during the mission, developed back on earth as soon as they returned, and since then has been made into video and duplicated many times over the years. What part may have been doctored, in your opinion?
Astrobrant2 5 months ago
@Astrobrant2 I mean the film with the supposed transparency incident was this original already viewed footage that was doctored to look like a new film? You know ,was anything shown not seen by the public before images of the 3 astronauts or could these have been massed together from films out in the PD that were cobbled together to look like new footage with this supposed faking scene added? I have no idea, as I have not seen most or all footage. cheers
outofthisswirled 5 months ago
@outofthisswirled Sibrel flat-out lied when he said that video was classified and not viewed by the public. It was broadcast to the whole planet on television at the time it was made.
Other videos show the parts where the earth is seen being zoomed out and going completely out of the frame of the window. This, of course, shows what a bald-faced liar he was, to have deliberately cut out those parts.
Astrobrant2 5 months ago
@Astrobrant2 I haven't seen this video your referring to, it would be nice to, is it on here anywhere or on the nasa site? I like your vids, they are very compelling and evince things I didn't understand before that looked hokey. I have to say though I am still not 100% I will be when I see 3rd party pics from China or Russia, I know this makes me sound like a crazy who thinks we will explode if we travel at over 30mph and a flat earther etc but I can't help it now, which is a shame.
outofthisswirled 5 months ago
@outofthisswirled Any time you are asking legitimate questions and listening to the answers, nobody should think you're crazy.
If you bump into any head-scratchers, let me know. The bottom line is that there has never been one shred of evidence which casts any doubt whatsoever on the authenticity of Apollo. All there has been is the occasional amateur, ill-informed, ill-motivated, ego-driven conspiracist wannabe who makes outlandish claims.
Astrobrant2 5 months ago
@outofthisswirled Re. "white lights"...I don't know of a shuttle mission where astronauts saw these flashes. Some Apollo astronauts say they saw them. I'm not aware of any who changed his story. They were presumed to be the result of an occasional high energy particle going through the eye.
Astrobrant2 5 months ago
Obviously some people wouldn't believe if you took them to the moon and showed them the rover(!), but I wonder if it's possible, despite the distance, to pick up at least some changes to Mt Hadley as the rover transverses? Side by side first frame/last frame?
notneilarmstrong 5 months ago
@notneilarmstrong It might work. I though about doing that, but never got around to it. There are lots of still shots of Hadley from different locations, though, which do show some differences.
Astrobrant2 5 months ago
I think it's a real shame that such a well made and interesting video is wasted on people that just make largely laughable CT comments. imo, We should just be in awe of such a wonderful achievement in human history and enjoy the ride.
Gonna get me a moon buggy on ebay!
notneilarmstrong 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FAKE
A
K
E
DeadJesus100 6 months ago
@DeadJesus100 How did they fake this? Magic? Advanced digital editing? So they had the technology to do that? Real answers, no trolling, or GTFO.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 DJ100 has been blocked on my channel. He is just another incarnation of monkey-man. The only way to deal with him is to block him, ignore him, and starve him of all the negative attention he craves.
Then he'll start a new channel, as he has done numerous times before, and make several thousand nasty remarks with that one until he is blocked/ignored/starved into oblivion again.
Astrobrant2 3 months ago
@Astrobrant2 I figured he was pure, unadulterated troll. He's perhaps worse than stalkervision, though in more of an over-the-top and actually less pernicious way. Too bad I won't get to hear his response to my question, I'm sure it would have been amusing. Hoax pushers typically offer pseudo-skeptecism (read: ignorance) and anomaly hunting, woven with a story of six-degrees-of-NASA, while ignoring strong positive evidence. Yet mysteriously they can't provide positive evidence for their claims.
ianman6 3 months ago
@Astrobrant2 I think a 'strategy' (as though it were needed beyond the proof positive already presented) for debunking the hoax theory is to let the proponents do it themselves. They reject or 'explain away' evidence in typical conspiracy theory fashion (it was all faked), and also reject any correction of their perceived 'anomolies' (which never are). Yet to make their case, they need to explain how this evidence was faked, and they can't. They only offer internally inconsistent ad hoc stories.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 Some of my videos are based on the theme that what they are using as evidence actually debunks their own claims.
I have often questioned them along the lines of, 'Let's suppose this was faked. Then why would the shadow...?" Etc. They never seem to have an answer. I also attack their claims on the grounds of "Why in the world would NASA do that?" The only answer they seem to come up with is that NASA people are stupid while hoax nuts are smart. That's a bit of a hard sell.
Astrobrant2 3 months ago
@Astrobrant2 Well the hoax pushers definitely display severe cognitive dissonance. NASA is smart enough to put together an elaborate hoax, after all, but dumb enough to supposedly leave behind glaring evidence of it. I asked one about the angle of the shadows proving there were two lights sources. I asked "Why aren't there two shadows then?" His response (verbatim): they were airbrushed out. Right, so they detailed that but neglect to align the shadows in post-processing? Yeah I buy that.
ianman6 3 months ago
@Astrobrant2 This one named Foos-something or other, upon being asked to explain how they faked the weather patterns on the Earth and where such a large studio would be for filming the 'LRV sequences', responded only this: "It doesn't matter how they faked it, they just did. I bet it's easy with billions of dollars. I don't have to explain how, I just have to prove they did." I think that speaks for itself, and just about summarizes the entire moon hoax claim.
ianman6 3 months ago
@ianman6 theres proof that they never landed on the moon in 1969
guineapiggyman 2 months ago
@guineapiggyman No, there isn't. All the 'evidence' ever presented is only because people like are dumb but make the mistake of thinking you're clever (which makes you, in fact, dumber). The real proof of that is in your last statement wherein you talk about the flag blowing in the wind. You're right, there is no wind. And he flag only waves after it gets touched. It's called kinetic transfer. If you are still on the flag waving bit, which most hoax nuts have abandoned, you are lost.
ianman6 2 months ago
@ianman6 who. when did i EVER mention a flag?? i said the rover FLAP was blowing up and down. but if you cant tell the difference between the words 'flag' and 'flap', then youve got bigger problems than me..... (btw, the evidence i have about the moon landing is nothing youve ever seen before. i guarantee it.)
guineapiggyman 2 months ago
@guineapiggyman Flap or flag, your argument is still that it is waving when it shouldn't. It isn't. It moves due to kinetic transfer, and you either know this and are simply lying or you are that stupid. And since you have this 'never before seen' evidence, let's see it! I'm so excited! By the way, how do you know what I have and have not seen? I GUARANTEE you will present nothing that is new or worthwhile, how about that?
ianman6 2 months ago 2
@ianman6 ok, so basically now, whatever i present, you will say youve already seen, regardless if you have or not. second, did you just learn that phrase, kinetic transfer? is that what theyre teaching you in middle school this week? nice! make sure you pay full attention
guineapiggyman 2 months ago
@guineapiggyman Kinetic transfer, the transfer of kinetic energy from one object to another via physical contact. Yes, I did learn it in middle school. Apparently you missed that lesson. It's pretty basic. That's ok, you'll catch up in remedial. And if you present genuine new material, I'll say so. I haven't seen anything new in years. So, once again, where is this supposed 'never-before-seen' stuff? Go on, enlighten me. Or are you just going to refuse and pretend I won't accept it anyway?
ianman6 2 months ago 2
@ianman6 haha yeah. it weird how some people need to go to remedial, even after a phd. well, thats america for ya! :P
guineapiggyman 2 months ago
@guineapiggyman I don't get it. Are you saying you have a PhD? Or that people with PhDs who accept the truth of the Apollo moon landings need remedial? And what does this have to do with America? You know what, never mind. You still haven't provided any proof or evidence of your claims despite your proclamation that you have some that I've 'never seen before', and instead you just keep talking out of your ass. Just as I predicted: full of shit you are.
ianman6 2 months ago
@ianman6 ok. then just leave it at that then... :)
guineapiggyman 2 months ago
@guineapiggyman So which is it? Do you have a PhD, or any other degree? Or not? Are you 18, 34, or 37? It's impossible to tell by your comment history since you are a troll in pure form. Busted...
ianman6 1 month ago
@guineapiggyman That's America? Hundreds of lunar samples have been examined by top scientists all over the world. Many hundreds of peer reviewed papers have been written on them and thousands of other scientists, (again, all over the world), have read them. Not one has ever found anything that would undermine the authenticity of those samples. The same goes for all the photographic evidence.
So you are dismissing the whole's world's scientific community, out of hand.
Astrobrant2 2 months ago
@Astrobrant2 The other part about wires, is you can see the antenna on his pack, moving with the direction of the pack as he moves about the LRV. Impossible if it's supposed to be a wire supporting him to give an illusion of reduced gravity. I don't need to say it, but am going to anyway: hoaxers are morons!
MrSkunkwork100 2 months ago
@Astrobrant2 never said that they NEVER got rocks from the moon. i just said they didnt put men there. did you know that the moon rocks have THE SAME composition as on earth, because both were made from the same elements around the same time? so it would be very easy for NASA to give all these scientists regular rocks. whos gonna know? OR MAYBE THEY GAVE THEM THE ROCKS THAT NATURALLY GOT HERE FROM THE MOON, AND LANDED IN THE ARCTIC. do some homework, hun
guineapiggyman 2 months ago
@guineapiggyman Humans and rats have the same composition, too. A geologist can tell the difference between moon rocks and earth rocks like a biologist can tell the difference between humans and rats.
When you people get all smart-assed like that, it stings a lot worse when you get debunked. Clearly you just picked this tidbit up from some other equally ill-educated hoax nut.
Lunar meteorites on earth weren't identified as such until several years AFTER Apollo.
Astrobrant2 2 months ago
@guineapiggyman Did you know that rocks on earth are beaten by wind erosion, water erosion, and oxidation from the air? So If you have a moonrock from an airless moon, it couldnt possibly be confused for an weather ravaged earthrock by any geologist over the age of 4?
Hoax retards never think of the obvious. Cause not only are none of you geologists, or anything else that works for a living, very few of you are over the mental age of 4 ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse wooooww. lol. you...youre talking about almost all rocks! yes!, im talking about rocks that are in siberia, with almost petrifying qualities, and arent in water, sand, wind, etc. ya know, kinda like how we find intact mammoth bones with almost no wear (and those are hundreds of thousands of years old! i must be a pretty smart '4', considering having gone to college and studied physics and music, then! ;) (sheeple...)
guineapiggyman 2 months ago
@guineapiggyman Why would moon rocks away from atmospheric and active geological conditions be "petrified?" You're just cut and pasting big words again ;)
ANY rock found in ice or water or air would have freezing expansion damage, heat extremes damage, and oxidation damage, even from something as little as random H+ and OH- ions. Which the moon does not have.
4 was an overestimate. You're now down to 3 ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse i didnt say they were petrified, i said they were in petrifying conditions. (you do know a rock cant be petrified, right? only living organisms can). and you do know only soft rocks go thru freezing cracks, right? (god i hope so):- yeah i cant get enough cut and paste. heres some other big words i just found on google to cut and paste: supermassive blackhole; antidisestablishmentarianism; dog; cat; marshmallow (ooooh thats a good one!) lol. stop trolling, kid
guineapiggyman 2 months ago
@guineapiggyman In other words, you've run out of talking points and are backpedalling to save face ;)
You didnt consider that Earth rocks would be oxidized while moon rocks couldnt be
You didnt consider that Earth rocks would have freezing and erosion damage while moon rocks would not.
We're really thrilled that you think parroting a dork webpage's talking points make you sound clever, but SOME of us actually passed high school science. A few of us even TAUGHT it ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse explain how im backpedaling. PLEASE i would LOVE to know. im only clarifying my position, because you seem to need everything in lamens terms. moon rocks would be WAY more oxidized than you think, because theres no atmosphere there, its open to the suns flares and radiation, WHICH CONTAINS LOTS OF OXIDIZING COMPOUNDS. jesus christ, read a book for once, instead of trolling.
guineapiggyman 2 months ago
@guineapiggyman You tell people to read and look things up, but never give a link.
You dropped big names, claiming they back up your foolish claims about gamma rays, but somehow manage to never give a source.
Have you examined moon rocks yourself? Are you a geologist? Hundreds of peer reviewed papers have been written on moon rocks by top geologists. Do you know something they don't?
Astrobrant2 2 months ago
@guineapiggyman Backpedalling = Being challenged and weaseling out. Or Making a statement then refusing to explain it. You're guilty of both.
"way more oxidized." BULL There's nothing on a moon as oxidizing as being smothered in a 15 lbs per square in ATMOSPHERE. I'm talking about RUST dumbass. About O+ and OH- molecules that bind with it, not a retarded gamma ray.
Again, you're arguing with a science teacher. You dont know shit ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse yep :)
guineapiggyman 2 months ago
@guineapiggyman No refute for my (brilliant) oxidation explanation is a tactic admission that you know I'm right ;)
This would be so much easier if you had even a junior high concept of science. But as the other thread proved, you dont even know what the speed of light is ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse yeah, you didnt get a refutal right away, because unlike you, i HAVE OTHER THINGS IN MY LIFE TO DO. and calling yourself brilliant just makes you look like an obnoxious ass haha. and it really wasnt that brilliant, any idiot would agree with me (as you see by the number of thumbs up im getting on my earlier comment lol. ) 'nuff said.
guineapiggyman 2 months ago
@guineapiggyman "i HAVE OTHER THINGS IN MY LIFE TO DO"
Then maybe you should go do them instead of hanging around here, egotistically trying to sell people on this stupid Apollo hoax nonsense and making a fool of yourself by refusing to go look up the most elementary things that you pretend to be an expert on but actually don't know diddly-squat about.
Astrobrant2 1 month ago
@Astrobrant2 im not trying to sell anybody. but if you are so close minded, then y area YOU here? huh? huh? huh? dumby
guineapiggyman 1 month ago
@guineapiggyman Unlike you I ALREADY HAVE THE ANSWERS. I dont need to google or wait to stall. That you need to go away to find an answer is pathetic.
I told you, I actually taught science. There's nothing you can copy and paste that I didnt already know 20 years ago.
Any "idiot" DOES agree with you. As you just admitted ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
@SpreadingtheMuse i never stalled once. i replied in full to everything you asked, then you started making things up, that i couldnt know the answer to, cuz THEY WERE MADE UP. dippy, hun
guineapiggyman 1 month ago
@guineapiggyman Talking about yourself and him and who said what and who is stalling, etc., is a waste of space. Make your arguments against Apollo or go away.
You have repeatedly demonstrated your total ignorance of science. Like most hoax nuts who comment on my videos, you have shown yourself to be absolutely clueless.
You're welcome to keep demonstrating that if you like.
Astrobrant2 1 month ago
@Astrobrant2 lol omg, im watching tv. and its that episode of transformers where donatello has to fight pinhead. awesome!!!
guineapiggyman 1 month ago
@guineapiggyman Well, I suppose comments like that do give us a break from your persistent demonstrations of your scientific illiteracy and gullibility for dumb hoax claims.
Of course, it's totally off topic. If you want to get out of here, you could just leave.
Astrobrant2 1 month ago
@Astrobrant2 wow now im watching that movie where frodo has to find the highlander sword and use it to slay that big-horned demon guy from legend. ya know, whats the name of it? jeez i always forget (bad mammories, ya know)
guineapiggyman 1 month ago
@guineapiggyman "Bad mammories?"
You can't avoid showing what a moron you are even when you're spamming childish off-topic comments.
Hun.
Astrobrant2 1 month ago
@Astrobrant2 dude this lord of the kings movie is great. they just showed the guy from rudy. that was a good movie. he so wanted to play baseball to make his dad proud.
guineapiggyman 1 month ago
@guineapiggyman Lord of the Rings is good? Great. You're only ten years behind the rest of us ;) We'll expect your up to the minute review of Star Wars 77 next ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
@SpreadingtheMuse We may have a revealing surprise for GPM in the near future. (No spoilers.)
Astrobrant2 1 month ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Don't bother with guineapiggyman/clown shoes. If you want to see what he is all about, go here:
watch?v=xhS0lVJ_NBY
FishHeadSalad 1 month ago
@FishHeadSalad I've had him pegged as a lunatic newb for a while now. But I'll check out the link
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
@SpreadingtheMuse:
He had YT delete the video for exposing his lies but there are much more copies of the video around. ^_^ And here is a list of the google cache YT links where he claims to own a dozen or so university degrees:
tinyurl(dot)com/cqua44q
tinyurl(dot)com/brbjysf
tinyurl(dot)com/cbmlby2
tinyurl(dot)com/d3fs2ro
tinyurl(dot)com/d3dl4l5
tinyurl(dot)com/dxxbgua
tinyurl(dot)com/bwvuhh6
MsHyde1 1 month ago
@MsHyde1 Pity for him, I already watched the video, BEFORE it was deleted. hehehehe
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
@SpreadingtheMuse: Haha, excellent. And there are already a couple of mirrors up so he is not getting rid of it anytime soon. ^_^
MsHyde1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@guineapiggyman guineapiggyman wrote: "dude this lord of the kings movie is great. they just showed the guy from rudy. that was a good movie. he so wanted to play baseball to make his dad proud."
Hey Clown Shoes, "baseball" is the game with bases and a bat. Pretty bad when you think that football is called baseball!
FishHeadSalad 1 month ago
Comment removed
NasaCriminals 1 month ago
@Astrobrant2 Youy are mentally backwards TROLL
NasaCriminals 1 month ago
@guineapiggyman You have stalled and weaseled out of SEVERAL questions, out of both ignorance and embarrassment
1) Name one fruit cake hoax page conspiracy thats soooo stupid even you dont believe it
2) Explain why the speed of light at 300000000 m/s should take 8 sec to reach the ISS and back
To name only two. You've been bluffing and pushing illiterate stupidity as long as you've been here
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
@SpreadingtheMuse ummm, yeah ok. you have no idea what oxidation is. that much is clear
guineapiggyman 1 month ago
@guineapiggyman You do some homework, any rocks from the moon that are found on Earth are Meteroites and a such will be heated and melted by entering the Earths atmoshere, I think any geologist would spot that easily, also Moon rocks found n Earth were not identified as such untill after the Apollo moon missions.
musicbruv 2 months ago
@musicbruv "Moon rocks found n Earth were not identified as such untill after the Apollo moon missions."
I told him that, too. Like all good hoax nuts he just ignored it and moved on to his next argument.
Astrobrant2 2 months ago
@Astrobrant2 I would advise against responding to @guineapiggyman. He is a pathological liar with severe self-esteem issues. Responding other than calling him out would simply feed his pathology. Note that I don't call him simply a troll (he is, of course), because his situation is actually far beyond this. /watch?v=PMjNb0maSkQ exposes the extent of his mendacity, though it isn't really worth watching honestly. Suffice it to say, he is an attention deprived kid in his mom's house.
ianman6 1 month ago
@ianman6 I saw FHS's video before it was taken down for "hate speech"> LOL...can you believe that??
GPM hasn't been back here since then. I can ignore him. I get plenty of wackos on my own videos on a daily basis.
Astrobrant2 1 month ago
@Astrobrant2
hahaha it's like Holywood did its job so well
Man you really think this was a proof of going to the moon?
what are we stupid morons? why is any of you moon landing supporters evidences so weak?
and the part about wires was totally irrelevant! it made me crack up. you shouldn't have changed the scene. anyway this ain't gonna last so long. the truth will always win
Shayanpac 1 month ago
@Shayanpac It's lasted for 42 years despite the boneheaded efforts of people like you for the last 37 years. You have no idea what you're talking about, and what's worse, you KNOW you have no idea what you're talking about.
Now go ahead and make a claim against Apollo so we can all SEE how much you don't know.
Astrobrant2 1 month ago 2
Comment removed
Shayanpac 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Astrobrant2 the media has been controlled by the government and there has never been a complete flow of information. that's why their lies lasted too long. right now thanks to the internet, their lies are coming out. that's why they desperately wanna censor it.
How much I know or don't know about Apollo is irrelevant to what I said. I said contrary to your statement this video is not a proof for going to the moon.
if u really regard this as a proof, u seriously need some education!!!
Shayanpac 1 month ago
@Shayanpac "what are we stupid morons?"
That and more.
Astrobrant2 3 weeks ago
@Astrobrant2 I see Nasa suck-puppets on all lunar videos.
you lack knowledge and need some education dude
first you should learn what is a 'proof'
then you will realize that what u presenting us as a proof is nothing but some weak evidence which can easily be refuted.
I don't know why all the moon landing supporters' proofs is so fucking weak?
I mean seriously what the fuck is this?
u really didn't have anything better to show us? LOL
Shayanpac 3 weeks ago
@Shayanpac This is just one video showing just one example which refutes just one hoax-nut claim.
You should inform all those people with real credentials, (the entire world's scientific and academic communities over the last 42 years), that they need to catch up with people like you. You can start with the hundreds of top geologists who have written many hundreds of peer reviewed papers on lunar samples they examined. I'm nobody.
But for now, state your evidence against Apollo.
Astrobrant2 3 weeks ago
@Astrobrant2 does existence of lunar samples on the Earth prove that man has been to the moon? some simple elementary robot could bring them over here. the evidences for the moon landing hoax are much stronger than your funny examples.
This movie has an artistic value though! maybe a good nominee for the Oscar!!!
Shayanpac 3 weeks ago
@Shayanpac 840 pounds of lunar samples, (where the unmanned Soviet probe was only able to get a couple of ounces), about 15,000 EVA photographs, hours of video, two laser reflectors, 16 mm films, UV photography of the stars and earth, the Soviets tracking us, the total absence of any doubts by the many thousands of real experts all over the world in 42 years who have examined the evidence, and the total absence of ANY evidence suggesting fakery DO prove that we went to the moon.
Astrobrant2 3 weeks ago 5
@Astrobrant2 840 pounds of lunar samples !!! what the f..! u mean astronauts brought 400 kilograms of rocks! this definitely means that these samples (if what u sayin is true) are brought over here in several runs and yes! they can easily be taken by machines. u never seen that geology related machine which gets large samples from the depth of the ground? even a simple machine can do that dude.
Shayanpac 3 weeks ago
@Shayanpac Well you get on your horse and prove they did it that way. Then you show how all that other stuff doesn't mean anything. In 42 years, only ill-informed amateurs like you have ever challenged Apollo and not one hoax claim has stood up to scrutiny.
We went to the moon. It is an irrefutable historic and scientific fact.
If a simple machine can do it, then humans could do it. Grow up.
Astrobrant2 3 weeks ago 6
@Astrobrant2 I'm sure like most of the naive people you have no idea what u talking about!
making comments about scientific facts ain't that easy boy
humans couldn't do it cuz they had to be protected adequately from solar radiation.
and to do so, it would have required a much heavier craft with almost 10 cm of aluminium shielding all around...
Shayanpac 3 weeks ago
@Shayanpac "heavier craft with almost 10 cm of aluminium shielding"
Well, at least you aren't saying six feet of lead. But just the same, I'd like to know where you got that information.
Making comments about scientific facts is a whole lot easier for me than it is for you because we DID go to the moon and the science contradicts all your claims.
Astrobrant2 3 weeks ago
as Bill woods (a highly qualified scientist and a space rocket engineer who has been granted high security clearance for a number of top secret projects and has worked on the Saturn 5 rocket , the Apollo launch vehicle) says:
"the walls of the craft were made as thin and as light as possible. almost no protection at all against solar radiation."
with aluminium shielding , the minimum requirement is a thickness of 10 cm all around the craft and there was no attempt to provide such protection.
Shayanpac 3 weeks ago
@Shayanpac
Interesting, I looked for a source for that quote and found nothing.
Did he actually say that or did you mindlessly copy it from someone who made it up?
ytmoog 2 weeks ago
@Shayanpac
Incidentally Woods was not a rocket engineer. He was a computer programmer and mathematician.
Do try and get your facts right.
ytmoog 2 weeks ago
@ytmoog There's a Bill Wood and a Bill Woods, both associated with the Apollo program. The one you're referring to was the language guy, right?
There is a YouTube video of an offbeat TV show interviewing a Bill Woods, claiming to have been an engineer at NASA. I think he is a fraud, using the other guy's credentials. I've seen pictures of the other two, and he's neither of them.
I can't find the video. Maybe Shayanpac will help us.
Astrobrant2 2 weeks ago
@Shayanpac I am asking you again, and so is Ytmoog: where did you get this quote? If it was from a YT video, I think I've seen it but I can't find it now. Was it from that "interview" by some British guy?
Astrobrant2 2 weeks ago
@Shayanpac "that geology related machine"
You sound like a real expert. Could this machine also set up passive and active seismic experiments?
"samples are brought here over several runs"
At the rate the Soviets could manage, it would take more that 2300 trips to bring back 840lbs - and the largest rock the Soviets brought back was about the size of a pea.
BertieSlack 3 weeks ago
@BertieSlack didn't wanna get through this one but ok
Unlike the Apollo lunar samples, their Soviet counterparts show triboluminescence and non-oxidation, contain 6 to 9 times more Mercury (which should be uniformly distributed on the lunar surface)
orders of magnitude more molybdenum, wolfram, cadmium and silver, and have 50 times lower thermoluminescence sensitivity.
Shayanpac 3 weeks ago
@BertieSlack Also, A. Dollfus and E. Bouell of the Paris Observatory found that unlike the NASA samples, the polarisation of reflected light from the Soviet samples corresponds to that from the Moon surface.
Geochemist Minoru Ozima of the Tokyo University discovered that the nitrogen-14/nitrogen-15 isotope ratio in the Apollo lunar samples is very different from that in the solar wind whose blasts drilled these atoms into the lunar soil.
Shayanpac 3 weeks ago
@Shayanpac Yes, Bertie is right. You copied and pasted this. At least the hoax nut who wrote it admits, twice, that he hasn't done anything to verify it.
Astrobrant2 3 weeks ago
@BertieSlack
explanation is simple—the Apollo's soil was made on Earth.
Shayanpac 3 weeks ago
@Shayanpac
Absolutely pathetic. All you have proved is that you know how to cut and paste. Your comments are copied verbatim from a conspiracy website. None of the sources you cite doubt that the Apollo samples are genuine. Have you even read them? Of course not. The Apollo missions quite deliberately collected the widest range of samples they could - so of course there are differences with the very limited Soviet collection. Conclusion - you don't know what you're talking about.
BertieSlack 3 weeks ago
@BertieSlack Yes I copied and pasted because the references given were so strong and I checked them out myself . you want me to state the references?
there's no problem with copying and pasting as long as the references are trustworthy dude.
that's what science is about. you shouldn't repeat doing what has already been done
Shayanpac 3 weeks ago
@Shayanpac "the references were so strong I checked them out myself"
If you had really checked them yourself, you wouldn't have mis-spelled Ted Bowell's name. Who's E Bouell? OK - give us a quote from either source that casts doubt on the authenticity of the Apollo samples.
BertieSlack 3 weeks ago
@BertieSlack What if I state the references one by one?
I'm not sure if this funny cheap video with 5000 views is worth what I'm doing though!
but don't forget bill woods. he knows what he says
Shayanpac 3 weeks ago
@Shayanpac There's more than one Bill Wood(s) associated with NASA. Which one are you referring to? I know where this is going to end up, but let's show the viewers, just for fun.
Astrobrant2 3 weeks ago
@ShayanpacThe references were to scientists who have written articles that hoax nuts misrperesent and quote-mine. It's a common practice among conspiracy theorists, political extremists, and religious fundies.
"that's what science is about. you shouldn't repeat doing what has already been done"
But to avoid embarrassment, you should follow those references in that quoted material and SEE what they said.
Astrobrant2 3 weeks ago
@Astrobrant2
there is nothing insane about conspiracy theories
unless you define insanity as believing whatever the governments tells u
I ain't gonna answer you anymore
cuz this video is cheap with so few views
not worth it
bye and die in your ignorance
beaaatch.
Shayanpac 3 weeks ago
@Shayanpac All you should need now is some evidence to back that claim up.
Astrobrant2 3 weeks ago
@Shayanpac According to articles I found in Geo Times and Space.com, the explanation is that shortly after the moon formed, before the formation of the earth's geomagnetic field, the solar wind blew some of the earth's early atmosphere away and some of it ended up hitting the moon.
They want to test this theory by comparing to samples taken from the far side of the moon. And if there is no difference, they'll doubt the current model for the formation of the solar system, not Apollo.
Astrobrant2 3 weeks ago
@Astrobrant2 You need evidences and proofs for what I say but you yourself present none. I told you by the way you 'reason' and talk I can tell that you are not a properly educated person. so you found an article in Geo Times heh? what article ? name it so we can read it as well
Shayanpac 3 weeks ago
@Shayanpac "You need evidences and proofs for what I say..."
You didn't say it. You copied it from a forum post -- someone who probably doesn't know any more about this than you do.
Astrobrant2 3 weeks ago
@Astrobrant2 Excuse me but your proof is also a copy from Nasa's archive isn't it? all science is about copying and there are rare inventions and discoveries.
Shayanpac 3 weeks ago
@Astrobrant2 how calm you are and your sarcasm is too funny...i laughed my ass off at the end.
xserbia97 6 days ago
@guineapiggyman There's a very high probability that EVERYTHING you think you know about Apollo has not only been seen by others who really KNOW this subject, but was debunked before you were born.
Astrobrant2 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APOLLO 15 THE LEAST ADVERTISED FAKE MOON LANDING MISSION
Erenie Ray the scientist who worked with Van Allen the Nasa Propaganda whore
said that radiation 700 miles from earth where the EMF stops its protection
was 1000 times higher than the maximun setting of his geiger counter.
Of all of the radiation brought to the magnetosphere by solar winds
only 0.1 % manages to cross the magnetic barrier
Apollo had no radiation shielding
DeadJesus100 6 months ago
At first I was like ZOMG!!! JEFF BRIDGES!!
ZachRihn1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NASA DISNEY MOON HOAX
Nasa Lying Astronauts
Alan Bean and Gene Cernan have no idea where the VA Radiation Belts are but they swear thye went through them to the moon
watch?v=9arbAsN6MCE
DeadJesus100 7 months ago
Very good video, I was wondering about navigating on the moon, obviously finding their way back to the LEM would be a simple matter of following their wheel tracks back, and I suppose they could also use landmarks to aid navigation, but was there any high tec way of navigating? after all getting lost would not bare thinking about
musicbruv 7 months ago
APOLO HOAX
Nasa astronaut and scientist Brian Oleary who worked on the Fake Apollo Programme until 1967 said Nasa could have Faked IT
Jan Lundberg scientist from hasselblad responsible for the cameras for the fake apollo missions mocked Nasa when he said go ask Armstrong why he is standing in the spotlight
P Arnolds from Kodak who supplied the film for the cameras for the Fake Apollo Missions mocked Nasa when he said the astronauts had
to guess where they were aiming their cameras
DeadJesus100 7 months ago
@DeadJesus100 These have all been dealt with before and I'm sure you've seen them. O'Leary has stated that he was taken out of context and that he knows the missions were real. When a scientist is asked if they are 100% certain that something couldn't have been faked, most will say no. They avoid absolutes.
Lundberg was shown a lousy print of 5903 and didn't know why it looked so dark. So what?
Astronauts were trained for months on how to point and shoot.
You have nothing.
Astrobrant2 7 months ago
@Astrobrant2 the lying TROLL
Oleary is interviewed on a video on youtube and he says ad verbatim
"I can't say 100% for sure that men walked on the moon.
Its possible that Nasa could have Covered it up, just in order to cut corners and be the first to allegedly go to the moon"
Should i show you the video link LIAR?
Lundberg was shown a Nasa print
The astronaut fakers taking photos with the cameras strapped to their chests
in 200 degrees heat with solar radiation bouncing off
DeadJesus100 7 months ago
@DeadJesus100 - NASA crackers? lol ...Crackers for blue cheese, I guess they didn't have a airport hanger (commonly spelled hangar) big enough to stage a mission to Uranus; but they did manage to put man on the Moon and we shouldn't need astroband2 to demonstrate this. Though, I am glad that he does.
HucksterFoot 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeadJesus100 - NASA crackers? lol ...Crackers for blue cheese, I guess they didn't have a airport hanger (commonly spelled hangar) big enough to stage a mission to Uranus; but they did manage to put man on the Moon and we shouldn't need astroband2 to demonstrate this. Though, I am glad that he does.
@HucksterFoot - Correction - Replace astroband2 with Astrobrant2. :]
HucksterFoot 7 months ago
mkay - kindly look at your video at 4.40
What I refer to is at 4.44 an onward a few seconds.
The astronaut tilts his head.
Is that supposed to be that way?
I never noticed such thing until now.
The design would suggest this kind of movement of the head to be not possible.
What one sees from outside as the helmet is another shell over the actual helmet inside - to provide protection from light and heat.
And even that inside is not supposed to be movable.
What do you say?
Am I off track?
jonathanjomen 7 months ago
@jonathanjomen The helmet and suit design attempted to allow that kind of mobility. You just can't do this sort of thing without being able to look down. As shown in the video, it is sometimes necessary to look up, too.
This is one of the reasons those getups cost millions of dollars each.
Astrobrant2 7 months ago
I know of no other similar shot
It does'nt even look pressurized btw
That of course means nothing
Quote from site I found on this, there seem to be many with the exact same words.
search terms: apollo spacesuit head helmet
'Unlike Mercury and Gemini helmets, which were closely fitted and moved with the crewman's head, the Apollo helmet was fixed and the head was free to move within.'
That it is desireable to be able to look up and down is granted
Just not by moving the whole helmet it seems
jonathanjomen 7 months ago
@jonathanjomen The lower neck ring of the assembly was connected to the softer material of the suit, and as evidenced by the film clip, did allow some vertical mobility.
Astrobrant2 7 months ago
@Astrobrant2
I would'nt ask if I had no doubts.
Such doubts come from and are fueld by strange and never before or after seen things like this.
'as evidenced by the clip' as your answer to rid me of my doubts regarding it is'nt going to help.
What would help is another example or a design-description mentioning it.
What I found so far is: Hard Upper Torso to which the fishbowl like helmet attaced.
Head is free to move - within it.
What we see is another layer on top of the helmet for EVA.
jonathanjomen 7 months ago
@jonathanjomen I don't have any better information than the fact that we can see a certain degree of movement in an authentic Apollo film.
I doubt that your sources ever implied that the helmet was so rigidly fixed that it prevented any vertical movement.
Astrobrant2 7 months ago
@Astrobrant2
...and I doubt, from everything I know about the design and from everything else I have seen thus far, that this should be possible.
Which is the reason I was turning attention to it
I guess we will have to let this stand as it is until something more comes up.
I'm obviously not convinced regarding the reality of all this
You obviously are
We have only pictures so far, and the individuals ability to judge them in relation to what is known to be true and consistent with the rest
jonathanjomen 7 months ago
@Astrobrant2
Pointing out the obvious:
it is exactly the authenticity of the film which I doubt, because it shows things which we should not see.
At least you and me have ever seen this elewhere, to be accurate.
Regarding your doubt on what my sources implied - they explicitly mention that the head is free to move within the fishbowl helmet attached to the rigid upper torso part of the suit.
Which makes me fairly certain - obviously.
Your doubting does not manage to shake that very much.
jonathanjomen 7 months ago
@jonathanjomen
"What I found so far is: Hard Upper Torso to which the fishbowl like helmet attaced."
Actually there is a flexible joint between the neck ring (which allows the helmet to rotate) and the hard upper torso. This allows the whole helmet plus outer visor assembly to flex back and forth as well as rotate.
I have a good images which shows the suit without the outer layers in which this is visible... shall I send it along?
ytmoog 7 months ago
@ytmoog
Thanks for answering.
By all means: yes, send it along.
Along with the source of the images ;)
We are talking Apollo here - not Gemini...
They had different suits with movable helmets -
as opposed to the fish-bowl like thing here, which would make moving the helmet along with the head unneccesary because they can see and turn head in all directions even though the helmet being fixed.
I'd like to know - bring it on please.
jonathanjomen 7 months ago
@ytmoog
one thing strikes me here in what you said:
"...flexible joint between the neck ring (which allows the helmet to rotate)..."
This neck ring in the (now old...) suit was not there to allow the helmet to rotate - there was no need.
It was a "fishbowl" after all - open view in all directions.
Making this "rotatable" would have gained nothing...while adding a LOT of complexity btw.
It was/is there to attach and pressure-seal the helmet to the suit.
anyway - I'm eager for the pictures ;)
jonathanjomen 7 months ago
@jonathanjomen
You are right on the rotation... I was thinking of the wring one.... ignore that :)
I have sent you along the images showing the difference, hope they are interesting.
ytmoog 7 months ago
@ytmoog Thanks - wikipedia - I knew I had seen these before ;)
I did'n make the connection when I saw the video here.
And I see how it's supposed to work.
The pic of A7LB seems to be the only one in existence on the planet.
The author of the wiki-page got them via email by request, they are'nt in official archives.
I'll probably have to review skylab-footage to see this kind of action again in film.
This can't be the only second such thing can be seen.
I thank you for your time and effort!
jonathanjomen 7 months ago
@jonathanjomen
" doubts come from and are fueld by strange and never before or after seen things like this."
The reason it would not have been seen before is because the Apollo A7LB suit used from Apollo 15 onwards had this additional flexible joint between the helmet ring and the upper torso but the A7LA suit used on Apollo 11 to 14 did not.
The suit was continually updated by ILC to improve performance and flexibility during the missions. Would you like the images showing the modifications?
ytmoog 7 months ago
@ytmoog this was flagged as spam for whatever reason - same answer as to the other post:
yes, please - along with source if possible
jonathanjomen 7 months ago
@ytmoog Thanks for that info, moog!
And I don't know why your comment was marked spam. I've marked it as "not spam," but that never seems to work.
Astrobrant2 7 months ago
NASA'S APOLLO MOON HOAX
NASA Astronaut Armstrong the Liar said he never saw stars in space
"The sky is deep black when viewed from the moon as it is when viewed from cislunar space, the space between the earth and the moon. The earth is the only visible object other than the sun that can be seen"
Melville the Space Tourist said
"Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch black and seeing stars appear while it is daytime is absolutely
mind blowing"
DeadJesus100 7 months ago
@DeadJesus100 I have a perfectly logical response to that: Show us how you know Melville's mission was real, since you are using it for comparison.
Astrobrant2 7 months ago
LOl @Astrobrant2
You do realise you are mentally challenged don't you shill?
Prove Nasa Fake moon landings were real
and google the authenticity of space tourist Melvilles flight
on Nasa's Propaganda website
DeadJesus100 7 months ago
@DeadJesus100 Predictably, and oh so typically of your ilk, you didn't answer my question. The bottom line is that there is FAR less documentation of Melville's flight than of Apollo. You and your dozens of noxious, insulting sock accounts do nothing but discredit your whole side of this matter.
Astrobrant2 7 months ago
LOL @Astrobrant2
Phil Plait the Nasa propaganda idiot from the nazi website bad astronomy
only employs halfwits to spam youtube and defend the fake nasa moon vids
but i can not understand why all of you hoaxturds are gay?
Idiots yes ofcourse for $10 a day you would have to be
but why does he refuse to employ straight guys?
DeadJesus100 7 months ago
@DeadJesus100 Another insulting conspiracy theorist who thinks he can sell his position with "attitude" arguments like this. I guess you've been around long enough to know better than to make an actual claim, because by now you've learned that every one you can make has a very logical explanation and that virtually ALL claims against Apollo are revealed to have been the product of ignorance and conceit by amateur "twoof-seekers" with little or no relevant education, knowledge, or experience.
Astrobrant2 7 months ago
@Astrobrant2 i have exposed you for the lying imbecile Troll that you are.
Phil Pliats little propaganda monkey.
You can not even conjure up a few excuses that make sense.
You are unable to address the facts i have posted to show that the Apollo Missions were 100% FAKED.
DeadJesus100 7 months ago