@Rob260259 Yeah, like those asshats buzz aldrin and neil armstrong who discredit some of the missions... oh wait, they were the ones who supposedly went....
Nice excuse. They explain the hole around the blob allegedly representing the LM, saying that it is not a picture. Then they mix this argument saying it’s the disturbance caused by the lunar module. They cannot have it both ways. They can come up with every absurdity that comes to mind in order to perpetuate the hoax
@Rob260259 You have to laugh when you get a whiff of reality because you're so used to living in the matrix world of moon landings and evil terrorists trying to kill you.
People are still arguing about this? I thought we all agreed that the moon landings were faked years ago. You gotta be fuckin crazy to believe that we have the technology to travel ALLLLLLLLL the way to the moon yet we havent even charted the deepest parts of our oceans...
Solar flares are excess energy that follows the magnetic field of the sun until the energy is strong enough to break free of the sun's magnetic field. The flares come off in many directions and the chances of them hitting every planet in the solar system are large. They hit in a matter of minutes or days depending on the power of the flare. Nasa can't predict them more than days in advance.
I liked joe's question about how the astronauts passed through the van allen belt, and the apparent debunker expert that has all the answers suddenly is speechless, and his explanation, They survived the van allen belt because they were lucky!How many times have we apparently been to the moon and back?How much luck can you have!
@MrVforvendetta10 They survived the van allen belts because between the shielding of their suits and and craft, the speed and the angle that they went through, they took far FAR FAR less than a remotely lethal dose of radiation.
Couldn't agree more. The unreasonable and confrontational way in which Phil Plait attempts to hold reasonable discussion with learned astrophysicists like Dr. Joe Rogen, Ph. d., is just despicable. I often find myself wondering how he can even get away with appearing on legitimate radio programs like Penn's to have evidence-based dialogues with actual scientists like Dr. Rogan rather than just spending his time acting out lunar patterns on the side of the road for spare change.
one minute its obvious, due to an abundance of peer-reviewed research and evidence- then, when one intelligent, educated freethinker, much like Dr. (it is Dr, right?) Rogan here raises doubt, its complicated.
You know what's really hard to believe in? Heliocentrism.
Funny how the propogandists shout "we have images and gravitational science to support the conception that the Earth revolves around the Sun" its an open and shut case - yet once its queried and then pulled apart it becomes a load of crap like most aspects of the scientifically demonstrated fable.
The entire space program started out of as an arms & ego race with the Soviets and both the US and Soviets were racing to plant their flag on the moon and arm it. It be fair to assume after the Lunar Landings every intelligence service and scientific asset with Soviet interests crawled all over every piece of data about the Lunar Landings they could get a hold of, and so any sign or indication of forgery they would have cried foul. If the Soviets believe we landed on the moon why cant Americans
@aromcath the Soviet Union was controlled by the same Banksters which stole the Billions from the so called space race - which was really a race to have satellites in orbit (weapons in orbit)
There was a time when I would have said that you are insane if you dont believe that we landed on the moon!...! But 9/11 changed changed the way I think about government and the abilities and capacities to create and distribute lies...Today I would not be the least bit surprised to find out that it did not happen...
@Rob260259 I could say I lived around the block from herr Nietzsche fur funf jahren - I could also say "Ich spreche zemlich fliesen Deutsche aber das bedeuted gar nichts" I could bullshit about existensionalism or my fav - A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - but does that prove we walked or didn't walk on the moon? of course not..
Yeah... you could say a lot. The only thing you can't say though is that you are smarter than 40+ years worth of science and engineering.
Somehow there appears to be a psychological tendency for people to think that a significant event must have been caused by something similarly major, significant or powerful. I can't understand how someone can get sucked into a hoax belief system based on the premise that every scientist and engineer in the world is either stupid or lying.
I've learned over the years that there is really no use arguing with moon hoaxers. They are experts at using logical fallacies and bad science to trying to convince people they are right.
@spacehopperballs The thing is though, you don't have to just "believe the smart people". There are dozens of sites/books out there that do a wonderful debunking the hoax, laying out all the evidence in terms that anyone can understand, regardless of their scientific background.
The problem is that these sources are simple ignored by moon hoaxers and deemed to be "government plants meant to spread false information". Since they cannot discredit the info, they attempt to discredit the source.
@KudDukan I could just say the same thing about debunkers.....
"All generalizations are dangerous" (including this one :-) )
IMO Generalizing is a sign of desperation - if you have a specific point to make then please make it.
I will not make a sweeping assertions but so many times I watch a video were someone talks crap for 5 minutes and then says they have debunked something - quite absurd.
The point of this clip is a comedian owned Mr NASA - Phil plait who Debunked absolutely nothing
Joe should have asked as his last question the following:
If as you say all the dust was blown away exposing the rock below which didn't have a crater....How did Armstrong leave that famous footprint in the dust ?
yh the point was that in the lunar module photos there is still dust all around the module and no sign of disturbance or lack or dust due to the thrust pushing it away. But in the Clementine photos, there is. Why?
Holy shit joe. No "pictures" were taken by clemintine! the images were built from observations at various wavelengths including ultraviolet and infrared, laser ranging altimetry, and charged particle measurements. the big dark spot isnt what you see with the naked eye.
@spacehopperballs Not at all. Cou can convert the raw data from the above mentioned readings into visible images even though its invisible to the naked eye.
Most cosmological pictures from telescopes are done the same way.
For example, Hubble has no camera on board, but we have all see tons of images from its data collection. Hubble has infrared, gama-ray, and x-ray telescopes which collect different wavelengths, all of which can be converted to visible images. It's very straight forward.
@spacehopperballs How? He very clearly states that, as he understands it, Clementine wasn't equipped with an optical imager capable of taking what Joe wants to call a "photograph", but rather had hardware capable of discerning between "different types of minerals". Joe misread the "images" he saw, thinking they were pictures of a blast crater. Not to mention, over the course of twenty years in an airless vacuum, not much would or should have changed from what was left by Apollo 15.
funny how the propagandists shout "we have photos of the landing sites" its an open and shut case - yet once its queried and then pulled apart it becomes a load of crap like most aspects of the crumbling moon hoax fable.
I don't see anyone getting owned here, rogan's knowledge of the subject is superficial, when it comes to moon missions he just brings in one pile all the disproved arguments and myths, like a typical phrenetic hoaxhead. it's ridiculous.
Oh no, you don't get it obviously. It's not about a Cryptic puzzle. It's plain physics. It's engineering, it's courage, it's science, it's knowledge. That's 'all'....
My grandpa shouted "fake!" when I showed him my first cellphone some years ago.
The answer is that they used little to no thrust to land but a great deal more thrust to take off. So of course there was a lot less disturbance in the photographs before they left. DUH!
Joe Rogan... is now my hero!
wiiagent 6 months ago
Anybody could own Plait...except an Apollogist.
hunchbacked 7 months ago
WHAT A LYING FUCKING ASSHOLE -PHIL PLAIT. Yeah they shut off the fucking engine before they landed- spooled it way way down-LYING FUCK.
And TELLER-YOU'RE A UNFUNNY DOUCHEBAG.Stay in Vegas-they deserve your dumb ugly ass moron.
ed11561 7 months ago
You don't need a lot of thrust. Are people forgetting that gravity is very weak on the Moon?
upabittoolate 7 months ago
@Rob260259 Yeah, like those asshats buzz aldrin and neil armstrong who discredit some of the missions... oh wait, they were the ones who supposedly went....
Cawby 8 months ago
Nice excuse. They explain the hole around the blob allegedly representing the LM, saying that it is not a picture. Then they mix this argument saying it’s the disturbance caused by the lunar module. They cannot have it both ways. They can come up with every absurdity that comes to mind in order to perpetuate the hoax
elvisinpersonator 11 months ago
@Rob260259 You have to laugh when you get a whiff of reality because you're so used to living in the matrix world of moon landings and evil terrorists trying to kill you.
howitzer24 11 months ago
@TheJomogogo Spoken like a true ignoramus - you have lost your argument when you resort to insults.
spacehopperballs 11 months ago
About moon huggers I always wonder who is a cynical shill and who a useful idiot.
losability 11 months ago
People are still arguing about this? I thought we all agreed that the moon landings were faked years ago. You gotta be fuckin crazy to believe that we have the technology to travel ALLLLLLLLL the way to the moon yet we havent even charted the deepest parts of our oceans...
FFX383 11 months ago
Clementine saw dust disturbed on the surface, the idiots jump up and down and say this is proof of Apollo 15.
Why does NASA need to look for smudges err proof, are they not sure they ever went to the moon?
So Clementine provides proof BUT the feet of the Lunar Lander has NO moon dust on it.
NO MOON DUST on the feet, hey maybe those harmless solar winds blew the feet clean?
Hey NASA NAZIs you can NOT have it both ways.
Phil Plaitt is a dick
I can see why the NASA NAZIs feed him dis info.
islandbuoy4 1 year ago
62~72 Bad time to be in space SOLAR MAXIMUM YEARS
Solar flares are excess energy that follows the magnetic field of the sun until the energy is strong enough to break free of the sun's magnetic field. The flares come off in many directions and the chances of them hitting every planet in the solar system are large. They hit in a matter of minutes or days depending on the power of the flare. Nasa can't predict them more than days in advance.
McShill 1 year ago
I liked joe's question about how the astronauts passed through the van allen belt, and the apparent debunker expert that has all the answers suddenly is speechless, and his explanation, They survived the van allen belt because they were lucky!How many times have we apparently been to the moon and back?How much luck can you have!
MrVforvendetta10 1 year ago
@MrVforvendetta10 They survived the van allen belts because between the shielding of their suits and and craft, the speed and the angle that they went through, they took far FAR FAR less than a remotely lethal dose of radiation.
EmperorofCartoons 1 year ago
keep guarding the truth assholes - Apollo's truth sure "needs:" it....
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs
Couldn't agree more. The unreasonable and confrontational way in which Phil Plait attempts to hold reasonable discussion with learned astrophysicists like Dr. Joe Rogen, Ph. d., is just despicable. I often find myself wondering how he can even get away with appearing on legitimate radio programs like Penn's to have evidence-based dialogues with actual scientists like Dr. Rogan rather than just spending his time acting out lunar patterns on the side of the road for spare change.
skywb 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs
one minute its obvious, due to an abundance of peer-reviewed research and evidence- then, when one intelligent, educated freethinker, much like Dr. (it is Dr, right?) Rogan here raises doubt, its complicated.
Bullshit...
skywb 1 year ago
@skywb Plait made an ass of himself that is what the clip is about nothing more
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs
You know what's really hard to believe in? Heliocentrism.
Funny how the propogandists shout "we have images and gravitational science to support the conception that the Earth revolves around the Sun" its an open and shut case - yet once its queried and then pulled apart it becomes a load of crap like most aspects of the scientifically demonstrated fable.
skywb 1 year ago
dont we have the telocsopes today that are strong enough to see closely in great detail, like the hubble or somthing
zombiesack 1 year ago
@zombiesack You would think so - but according to NASA - No we dont ;-)
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
The entire space program started out of as an arms & ego race with the Soviets and both the US and Soviets were racing to plant their flag on the moon and arm it. It be fair to assume after the Lunar Landings every intelligence service and scientific asset with Soviet interests crawled all over every piece of data about the Lunar Landings they could get a hold of, and so any sign or indication of forgery they would have cried foul. If the Soviets believe we landed on the moon why cant Americans
aromcath 1 year ago
@aromcath the Soviet Union was controlled by the same Banksters which stole the Billions from the so called space race - which was really a race to have satellites in orbit (weapons in orbit)
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
Did I just wrote 'serioiusly'..?
LOL
Rob260259 1 year ago
There was a time when I would have said that you are insane if you dont believe that we landed on the moon!...! But 9/11 changed changed the way I think about government and the abilities and capacities to create and distribute lies...Today I would not be the least bit surprised to find out that it did not happen...
dmhappy2777 1 year ago
@dmhappy2777 dm please watch moon hoax in a nutshell(video response) and try repeating the info back.
try to get your head round it then hopefully its absurdity will become clear...
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
(Friedrich Nietzsche)
Get over it. We did land on the Moon. Six times, by the way.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259 I could say I lived around the block from herr Nietzsche fur funf jahren - I could also say "Ich spreche zemlich fliesen Deutsche aber das bedeuted gar nichts" I could bullshit about existensionalism or my fav - A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - but does that prove we walked or didn't walk on the moon? of course not..
SSTFU
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs
Yeah... you could say a lot. The only thing you can't say though is that you are smarter than 40+ years worth of science and engineering.
Somehow there appears to be a psychological tendency for people to think that a significant event must have been caused by something similarly major, significant or powerful. I can't understand how someone can get sucked into a hoax belief system based on the premise that every scientist and engineer in the world is either stupid or lying.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259 One word: Ego. Thats how.
EmperorofCartoons 1 year ago
have you seen pics of the lem?
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
I've learned over the years that there is really no use arguing with moon hoaxers. They are experts at using logical fallacies and bad science to trying to convince people they are right.
KudDukan 1 year ago 2
@KudDukan which is basically another way of saying the moon landings were complicated I don't have irrefutable proof just believe the smart people.
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs The thing is though, you don't have to just "believe the smart people". There are dozens of sites/books out there that do a wonderful debunking the hoax, laying out all the evidence in terms that anyone can understand, regardless of their scientific background.
The problem is that these sources are simple ignored by moon hoaxers and deemed to be "government plants meant to spread false information". Since they cannot discredit the info, they attempt to discredit the source.
KudDukan 1 year ago
@KudDukan I could just say the same thing about debunkers.....
"All generalizations are dangerous" (including this one :-) )
IMO Generalizing is a sign of desperation - if you have a specific point to make then please make it.
I will not make a sweeping assertions but so many times I watch a video were someone talks crap for 5 minutes and then says they have debunked something - quite absurd.
The point of this clip is a comedian owned Mr NASA - Phil plait who Debunked absolutely nothing
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
Joe should have asked as his last question the following:
If as you say all the dust was blown away exposing the rock below which didn't have a crater....How did Armstrong leave that famous footprint in the dust ?
ardoinjc 1 year ago
yh the point was that in the lunar module photos there is still dust all around the module and no sign of disturbance or lack or dust due to the thrust pushing it away. But in the Clementine photos, there is. Why?
khazal12 1 year ago
This discussion doesn't prove man didn't walk on the moon.
It just shows how sad Phil plait is when he not protected on his CIA run website. He is a fucking idiot with no sense of humor at all.
Rogan just showed Plait up for what he is - A total Moron
Sherlocksmartertwin 1 year ago
Holy shit joe. No "pictures" were taken by clemintine! the images were built from observations at various wavelengths including ultraviolet and infrared, laser ranging altimetry, and charged particle measurements. the big dark spot isnt what you see with the naked eye.
PluripotentBrain 1 year ago
@PluripotentBrain so plait is full of even more shit then
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs Not at all. Cou can convert the raw data from the above mentioned readings into visible images even though its invisible to the naked eye.
Most cosmological pictures from telescopes are done the same way.
For example, Hubble has no camera on board, but we have all see tons of images from its data collection. Hubble has infrared, gama-ray, and x-ray telescopes which collect different wavelengths, all of which can be converted to visible images. It's very straight forward.
PluripotentBrain 1 year ago
You can ***
Christmas wine is affecting my typing, haha
PluripotentBrain 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs How? He very clearly states that, as he understands it, Clementine wasn't equipped with an optical imager capable of taking what Joe wants to call a "photograph", but rather had hardware capable of discerning between "different types of minerals". Joe misread the "images" he saw, thinking they were pictures of a blast crater. Not to mention, over the course of twenty years in an airless vacuum, not much would or should have changed from what was left by Apollo 15.
skywb 1 year ago
@skywb
funny how the propagandists shout "we have photos of the landing sites" its an open and shut case - yet once its queried and then pulled apart it becomes a load of crap like most aspects of the crumbling moon hoax fable.
one minute its obvious - then its complicated.
Bullshit...
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
Comment removed
PluripotentBrain 1 year ago
I don't see anyone getting owned here, rogan's knowledge of the subject is superficial, when it comes to moon missions he just brings in one pile all the disproved arguments and myths, like a typical phrenetic hoaxhead. it's ridiculous.
Vitaminnn07 1 year ago 2
Hoaxhead: "I don't understand Phil Plait, so the Moonlandings must be faked".
Idiots.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259 Oh yeah its the old - You need to be really smart to know we went!
Oh I get it !! So its like a Cryptic puzzle! So if it doesn't sound logical it doesn't make sense ......
Do you not even have the perception to see how desperate that sounds?
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs
Oh no, you don't get it obviously. It's not about a Cryptic puzzle. It's plain physics. It's engineering, it's courage, it's science, it's knowledge. That's 'all'....
My grandpa shouted "fake!" when I showed him my first cellphone some years ago.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259 If its brown and smells and looks like bull crap - I don't wait for a scientist to tell me its bull crap
like half a million miles 40 odd years ago to 300 odd today with todays tecn - I don't need a scientist to tell me they were at their work.
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
Spacehopperbals: "I don't understand it, so I call it bull crap".
Rob260259 1 year ago
Is Phil Plait a freemason? Sounds like an expert bullshitter to me.
We sure as hell didn't have the technology in the 60s to go to the moon.
MoneyIsSilver 1 year ago
The answer is that they used little to no thrust to land but a great deal more thrust to take off. So of course there was a lot less disturbance in the photographs before they left. DUH!
WillShakespeare2007 1 year ago
he's religious, never trust religious people, they fucking read shit out of a comic book written thousands of years ago. I wasn't born last week
ArinOngunTV 1 year ago
"You don't get out of your garage at 80 miles"
But the lunar bucket supposedly flew from the Moon at 4000 miles...
potrodsas 1 year ago
Plait is just plain annoying
eurobuild 1 year ago
Yeah Plait is cocksucker
hear him "oh cooool" - what a gay boy
Rogan runs rings around him.
Sherlocksmartertwin 1 year ago
Phil Plait is an idiot
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
@spacehopperballs
And you are a qualified and credentialed physicist ofcourse.... LOL
Rob260259 1 year ago