Excuse me...at 0:36, who filmed the lunar module leaving for the last time? I mean, the camera is obviously being operated by someone....it follows the lunar module upwards....Did they leave someone there to hold the fort???
@qlli100 It was a remote-controlled camera, that's why the timing is so bad on the earlier lift-offs; I assume that it would be very hard to synchronize the camera movements perfectly when you have to time it according to the delays.
The mind-control agents are stored on there, but the illuminatti forgot to put the tapes showing the mission on the hologram airplanes that were headed for the explosive-laden twin towers.
@pgioffre -- hoax-theory believers are sheep who swallow whatever cool-sounding story someone makes up that makes them feel like they have some sort of special knowledge. All this fancy technology is a mystery to them because they don't do any actual research.
People who understand engineering understand how the various parts of the Apollo project worked.
There is nothing really mysterious about it.
And it's fairly easy to prove that all the main hoax-theory promoters are frauds.
@prosperomage and not just frauds, they're so deeply hypnotized by the hoax advocates that they are practically blindfolded when it comes to sane scientific conversation. ask any hoaxer about the physics of sending the lm+cm from the earth orbit to the moon and they'll start using language the same as fiction writers do in writing their new work!
once even i used to think apollo was fake, but after proper study, the conclusion's obvius - apollo did take place; no evidence denying the facts!
@djhappyyyyy ... OK smart guy who knows everything about video.
How would they have "faked" the motion of the astronauts? Yeah, I know, you'll say "slow motion & wire suspension."
But you don't have an answer for the motion of the dust that is the same as the astronauts. No, you can't do it with just slow motion alone. Look at the parabolic trajectory of the astronauts as they run. It's definitely with reduced weight.
So, if they used wires to suspend them, did they suspend the dust, too?
@dalylfc RIGHT? It clearly pans to follow the trajectory on the Lander. NASA is kicking themselves right now, they were like ''Who was in the editor in charge?'' It's all a cover up to squander billions from the public and spend it on warfare anyway. x
@isitomorrowyet The camera was remotely controlled from Earth. The last 3 missions had a remote camera mounted on the lunar rover. By knowing the comms time between Earth and the moon, the operator could correctly calculate when to pan the camera based on the launch countdown.
Except for Arse-troll-brant2 who clearly is a patronising government stooge well trained in guiding and moulding IT'S deluded followers, a common thread remains amongst the rest of the idiot Apollogists.
1) Few subscribers
2) Friends are 'where??'
3) Comments range from ' good to utter shite '
4) Wikipedia and comics are their research material
5) They are probably unmarried single men still living in Mummy's house
@Chev4206 I find it amusing that, lacking any proper argument, you are reduced to insulting people. I'm sure your elegant denunciation of people is very convincing to anyone interested in the Apollo moon landings.
Did the Russians ever make it to the moon?When i was in school they said the Russians and Americans were in a space race.If we ended moon landings in 72. the Russians must have caught up and eventually landed a man on the moon. right?
@smithdsmit No, they abandoned the program. 4 of the N1 heavy lift rockets that would have done it suffered catastrophic failures on the launchpad. So they concentrated on robotic exploration, using a more reliable smaller rocket. They landed two rovers on the moon and are still the only nation to have robotically retrieved samples from another planet (the moon).
no. It cost a lot of money for the US to land on the moon. After the US did it, the Russian gave up (their big rockets that matched Saturn V never were finished).
so the Russians did what? They sent small rovers (the Lunokhod) to the moon on smaller rockets on a FRACTION of the budget of the Apollo.
And they said "see? Americans are decadent wasteful pigs who spend a lot of money on what we soviets do for much less money!".
@smithdsmit No. They knew that travel into and through the Van Allen radiation belts is impossible for biological entities, eg. humans. They never went for this reason amongst others, and never will nor will the massively ego-orientated, stupid and thick americans. Except within the safe confines of a film studio in area 51
@Arayik777 They transferred back to the Command Module in lunar orbit. It left lunar orbit and headed back to Earth. It decelerated through the atmosphere with a heat shield to both slow down and protect the astronauts. Once inside Earth's atmosphere the parachutes deployed for the water landing.
Moon hoax advocates....they are so fucked in the head......don't waste time arguing with them and they will go away. Or just do what Buzz does and punch them in the face, only harder.
@TheJomogogo Agree with you 100 % about moon hoax advocates !! I was 13 when I watched the live landings etc. Do what Buzz does punch 'em in the nose harder ... LOL What morons this world holds with conspiracy theories! GET OVER IT - GROW UP - APOLLO HAPPENED !
humans landed on the moon. One thousand years from now, nobody will know or care what primitive Earth nation landed on the moon... only that we humans did it.
@JohnPiperBoots Another point that the hoaxers will have a hard time "explaining" is that several stations (who assumed that the moon landings really were happening from the start) aimed their receivers at the moon - so if nobody was on the moon at that point then they wouldn't even be able to send it on television.
Never argue or try to reason with a moon hoax advocate, just punch them in the face like Buzz Aldrin and ask "Hey! Do you see THE STARS now, motherfucker?"
Let's pretend just for a moment that we have no way of knowing whether the Apollo missions to the moon were real or not. Then everyone could only decide which they WANTED to believe: 1) Man had performed his greatest achievement, EVER, or 2) Man had faked his greatest achievement (cuz he couldn't actually do it). What kind of small-minded, petty, pathetic, cowardly weasels, masquerading as human, would WANT to believe number 2 when they could choose to believe number 1?
....It reminds me of the scene in Apollo 13 (which somebody like you thinks is total fiction) where the politicos and bureaucrats are estimating the odds of failure and disaster and will the heat shield fail and will the astronauts burn to a crisp, and the one guy mutters that "it would be the worst disaster NASA had ever experienced" and Ed Harris' character turns and says "With all due respect sir, I believe this is going to be our finest hour." ...
...What kind of people, seriously, LIKE to believe that we're incapable of going to the moon, that it was all a hoax, that it was staged by the government (for some purpose I have yet to fathom), the glass is half empty people who can only see and imagine the negative, the worst case scenario, etc. when they could join the rest of the human race in the pride of our having accomplished that, and feel the enthusiasm for achieving even more in space exploration?
The question is not: was it a hoax? The REAL question is: What sort of sad person would WANT to believe it was a hoax or take pleasure in thinking it was, or find that preferable to it having REALLY BEEN Man's "finest hour"?
@leisulin do you really think hippy hoppity is mans finest hour? Obama our first black president and his nobel peace prize , hello, are you awake yet.
"hippy hoppity"? Yes I do think Mankind made its greatest achievement ever in the 60s making the commitment to land humans on the Moon by the end of the decade, and then doing it successfully. I'm wide awake. I was even wider awake in the late 60s.
If you're going to count that ONE REASON as a billion reasons, then I want to hear the SECOND billion of your billions of reasons, one at a time. Sorry, saying $2 x 1 billion doesn't count.
@nesokretep Thank you very much for the effort. Consider me thoroughly briefed. And you got to watch the Mercury, Gemini AND Apollo programs as they happened? Wow!
As for what you said about timrocket, it seems that I have interrupted a clash of the titans. Carry on.
Just a guy with a moderate interest in space exploration vs. a silly troll.
And yes, I was a little kid for Mercury. But space travel was a big thing in movies back then, so the real thing happening at the same time was fascinating to a lot of kids.
@nesokretep Your problem is that you are stuck in your childhood beliefs and can not accept the fact that the US government lied about the Vietnam War, JFK and the Moon Landing Space Race WIN!
@timrocket2008 -- Your problem is that you don't understand that I opposed the Vietnam war back when it was in effect, I oppose the imperialist actions of the U.S. ever since Vietnam, I oppose the "regime change" by the U.S. government in Iraq, as well as all other "nation building" by the U.S. in other countries, I oppose the big-banking control of the U.S. and world economy.
I DO understand (and have understood since before you were born) that the U.S. government lies about these things.
@timrocket2008 -- I even am opposed to the way NASA has been run for at least the past 40 years.
And in addition to the fact that I am completely opposed to blind patriotism, and I oppose pretty much every single major action of the U.S. government for the past 50 years, I ALSO understand enough of the engineering of the Apollo project to know how it functioned and how they went to the moon.
And I also understand and can compute for myself sufficient proof that major hoax-theory promoters LIE.
@timrocket2008 -- I have never gone to the NASA web site for any facts or calculations. I don't go to clavius, either.
Well ... I did go to clavius once on the "blast crater" argument. But when I did, I just found that he had done the very same calculation that I had already done independently.
All of the ACTUAL independent research shows that the Apollo missions were real.
@timrocket2008 -- The people who DO see it as a hoax are just using their imagination to make up supposed "facts" like you are doing with the suit pressure.
@nesokretep So I guess Scientists are using their imaginations as well when they have no motive to prove it was a hoax yet just state their results of recent studies of radiation. NOT NASA studies. Actual ones. Ya know, the ones people like you totally ignore.
@nesokretep Oh yes I have you liar..."there is no way to protect a human from the forms of radiation outside of Earth's magnetosphere" Scientist Marcelo Vazquez
@timrocket2008 -- Give a reference for your Marcelo Vazquez quote and prove that it refers to something releveant to a 3-day trip to the moon.
That quote by itself proves nothing. I doubt that it is even the complete original sentence.
You can easilly lie (as I have seen you do in the past) by quoting a phrase out of context. It does your argument no good to do so, however. It only makes you look stupid when someone looks up the original statement.
@nesokretep Ok explain how any of my quotes are bogus. All you have to do is look it up. Research, call them up on the phone, e-mail etc. No one is stopping you.
@nesokretep PPFFFT! Yea I can't read or write. I need to learn how. Mean while we are communicating on a fucking message board requiring us to read an write. You Moon Fan people have no argument and prove to me you have no brains
@nesokretep I don't understand why you don't just contact Scientists and ask questions. You instead insist that the old NASA propaganda story is "REAL" on You Tube comments. Do you need me to give you contact info to Real Scientists? (Instead of websites) Any website that does not support your view, you simply slander.
@timrocket2008 -- You cannot quote any statement by me "slandering" a web site.
What I post here is real science. I do not need to slander web sites.
I do not need to use web sites for my source of scientific information. I do know real scientists. And all scientific and engineering calculations that I post are ones that I have calculated myself.
@nesokretep "I do know real scientists. And all scientific and engineering calculations" Sure you do. Thats why you are still fooled by the oldest politically manipulated science in the history of America.
When you see video of the capsule landing 2000miles away from land yet still in camera distance, you know it was all just a big show. The capsule is not an airliner where it flies horizontally and can be under air traffic control. It just drops. Good luck steering it to the Air Craft carrier. Wow NASA such good luck?
NASA has the luck of the Irish. 0.0004% chance of success landing on the moon once yet 100% success rate 6 times over. Why do people believe in such obviously fake propaganda crap?
@timrocket2008 It doesn't drop, it's called aerobraking. When you properly calculate the orbital mechanics of a de-orbit, you can accurately determine the location of the splashdown. It is then only weather conditions that add variables. Don't let your ignorance of this topic lead to you make stupid statements. You should check that you are right before posting a comment.
And when you mention a 100% success rate, why do you ignore Apollo 13? This reduces the success rate to 80%.
@krisdevalle I also ignored Apollo 1 to help your side since your side always loses every debate. Explain Apollo 1. Here is what I know.
The idiots pumped in too much oxygen and it fucking exploded and Grissom burned to death. Such an idiot mistake yet the other astronauts trusted them with their lives and trusted the space suits so much they were jumping around not nervous at all even though one puncture in it would = instant death. Get real. The whole thing was fake. Its just not convincing.
@timrocket2008 I'm not sure if you're stupid, or you deliberately get things wrong. Capsules for the Mercury and Gemini programs used a 100% oxygen mix for pressurization. Numerous missions were successful using this method. The Apollo 1 plugs out test that resulted in disaster was not because 'they pumped in too much oxygen', and for you to state this displays your deep misunderstanding of the event.
I suggest you research the actual details of the event before spinning a load of bullshit.
@timrocket2008 To address your insane ideas about a spacesuit being punctured; are you also aware that the suits themselves comprised about 15 different layers of fabric, insulation, protective weave and so on? That the outer layer of the suit was a mylar weave that was resistant to high-speed micrometeorite impacts?
Are you so completely ignorant as to think that a spacesuit designer would design a spacesuit that was easily punctured?
@timrocket2008 And finally, the funniest thing I have read is where you have announced that 'my side' always loses every debate. Why is this funny? Because reading back through the comments, I basically see you saying stupid, ignorant shit, and me correcting you, and you ignoring the corrections because you are aware I am right.
You should try arguing FOR the Apollo landings, it is a lot easier, because we have facts and logic on our side, instead of ignorance and disbelief.
@timrocket2008 I've addressed the facts you presented. If there are any you feel I have ignored, then re-iterate them. I would be happy to go over them.
Your latest idiotic theory is that the suits used on the moon weren't pressurized, and you feel you can prove this via photo comparison. Why then, are you the first person to have promoted this theory; and no-one else has mentioned it in the last 40 years?
@krisdevalle So you think I am the only one who ever noticed that about the suits? You claim to be " Mr. research" how come you think that then? How come this is the first time it has been brought to your attention? You must be a newbee. lol
@timrocket2008 I wish you the very best of luck proving that the suits are not pressurized, based on your photo analysis. I assume you have some criteria for proving this, and I am interested in how you can tell. Saying that it is 'clear' is simply poor form; if you wish to advance a theory as crackpot as this, you really need to explain in detail how it is that you can tell, and how no other spacefaring nation has noticed this.
@timrocket2008 -- You CANNOT tell anything about the pressure inside the suits just by looking at the outside because you cannot see the structure of the suit just from looking at the outside.
ALL of the so-called "evidence" of a "hoax" is made up by people who look at something, don't understand it, and then imagine their own personal version of an answer instead of actually trying to understand it.
@nesokretep They are blown up like balloons on the ISS yet "on the Moon" they are all wrinkled and freely moving. Obviously not in space. Clearly on Earth.
@timrocket2008 -- The "0.0004% chance of success" is just some idiot thing some guy who thought he was an "expert" pulled out of his ass. It's not based on anything. And it certainly has nothing to do with the engineering of the Apollo project.
@nesokretep Yes. I do believe Science. Especially now/ today Scientists say there is no way to protect a Human from the forms of Radiation outside of Earth's Magnetosphere. NOTE: The Moon is outside of Earth's Magnetosphere.
So its people like you who are stuck in 1969-1972 who still cling on to the belief in the old bull shit propaganda. NOT SCIENCE.
@timrocket2008 -- No. Scientists today do NOT say "there is no way to protect a Human from the forms of Radiation outside of Earth's Magnetosphere."
No actual scientist has ever said that. And you have never quoted anything to that effect from an actual source. You just enjoy making up the statement and repeating it over and over again.
@nesokretep Name one Scientist who disagrees with that first off. And yes I have direct sources. Unlike you. Your source is NASA's fucking website idiot.
@timrocket2008 -- What the sources HAVE said is that they are doing more studies of the types and strength of radiation on the moon.
They are doing it because studying the environment for a 3-day trip is not sufficient to detect all the radiation that would be encountered on a 6-month trip.
A level of radiation that would be insignificant and perhaps not even detected for the Apollo missions could be deadly for a 6-month stay.
Watch the video: Dark Mission 1 - NASA Moon Hoax - Analysis here on You Tube. About a few minutes after the 1 hour mark you can see how there was an artificial light source.
Speaking of shadows. I watched video of astronaughts supposedly on the moon and one of them walking away from the sun. His shadow shrunk considerably. That proves artificial light source. Not the Sun. Yet they lied by claiming it was on the Moon.
@timrocket2008 This only proves uneven terrain. Your shadow, in the sun, will shorten or lengthen depending on the slope you are on. On flat ground it is one length; on the side of a hill or gentle slope it is different. Think about it; it makes sense, and can be tested.
@krisdevalle It was right next to the Lander which is virtually, perfectly flat. And in Sunlight your shadow doesn't lengthen or shorten 5 feet in 2 seconds. If you saw the video, you wouldn't be able to honestly deny that it was artificial lighting.
Speaking of shadows. I watched NASA films supposedly on the Moon and as one of the astronauts walks away from the "Sun" his shadow shrinks considerably. That proves artificial light source and definitely not the Sun.
That is clear to me that it was a simulation video used for deception. In other words, Clearly Faked.
@timrocket2008 When in full sunlight the camera setting is not sufficient to capture starlight. We can see this in photographs of the Shuttle in orbit, the ISS, and other planets. I invite you to view examples to see this.
Apollo 16, however, took a UV camera and took over 200 exposures of the Earth and stars. These can also be viewed on the web if you are interested.
@krisdevalle Yea I know that in sunlight the exposure will be too short to pick up the stars. If it were long enough of an exposure to pick up the stars the the film would be over exposed due to the amount of Lums from the Sun.
I will have to check out the stars pictures. I don't understand why they say they never took pictures of the stars then.
Another thing I don;t understand is why Bart Sebrel claims Shadows never intersect. What would a shadow of a cross look like then?
@timrocket2008 Hoax believers say they never took pictures of stars because some hoax video or website told them this. We know it is not true because the Apollo 16 UV photographs exist.
Sibrel is perhaps not the expert many think him to be. Shadows can converge on Earth in the right conditions too. I can show you an example if you like.
Once you see the film of the capsule landing in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, then you know it was all just a big show. The camera guy just happened to be there every time? Ha Ha
The capsule was dropped from a plane. That is how they did it.
@timrocket2008 Actually, we're just trying to make sense of your latest round of bullshit.
And if you bothered to research splashdowns, many of them were quite close to islands or the Florida coast. But that's not really your way, is it? You just invent a newer, stupider question, and decide never to check whether it could answered with a small amount of research.
@krisdevalle Whats this"we" crap? You wannabe debunker.You never debunked a single thing even once. You can't even debunk the stars. Actually no one has.
There were splash downs closer to land than 2000miles like one about 1000miles from land but the land was The Dominican Republic. If they can steer the capsule and land a half a mile away from the ship and helicopter, why the fuck are they 2000miles away from land? It doesn't add up because there is 0% chance they could hit a target like that.
@timrocket2008 Because many of the splashdowns overshot. They have a safety margin. Many of them were on target too, but due to the vagaries of the atmosphere, an error margin is in place.
It's obvious to those who understand. It is also fairly easy to look up all the splashdowns that took place, compiled on wikipedia, to see how many were on target, and how many were not.
@krisdevalle Yea a 2000mile safety margin. Yea right For that little capsule. How ridiculous is it for them to be "over shot" yet still be in Camera range.
@timrocket2008 That's funny, I had thought it had been explained to you fairly simply. Sometimes it is on target. Sometimes it is not.
As the capsule is not guided during re-entry, and re-enters at a speed of up to 15,000mph, some margin of error is to be accepted. It is simply your ignorance that limits your understanding of this.
@timrocket2008 No, I'm not. If you go to wikipedia and enter 'splashdown' you can see the entire list of splashdowns and their 'miss' distance. Since there still exists a chance for catastrophic error, the splashdown locations are far out to sea.
As the re-entry trail can be viewed from quite high up, this exists as a perfect visual indicator to spotters as to the final re-entry location. Keen spotters can then direct air traffic to the final descent location. Does this seem reasonable?
@krisdevalle PFFT forget about wikipedia. That is the most unreliable source in existence. It is infested with disinformation.
I one time used information from wki in a debate about the moon landings and I was accused by 5 Moon nuts of writing the information on wiki myself!!. So I never even look at Wikipedia anymore.
@timrocket2008 It exists as a general collection of links. The splashdown information page can be used as a reference to see where the information was gained. I am aware of the changeable nature of the site, but it is still useful as the first stop before continuing to the actual source of information.
I suggest you begin to use it that way and it becomes a more valuable resource.
@krisdevalle All of the links seem to link right back to itself just to another wiki page of possible disinformation. I stay away from bull shit sites like Wikipedia and I strongly suggest you do the same.
You were fooled by NASA so a person like you is vulnerable to disinformation as actual true info.
@timrocket2008 Now you are just being recalcitrant. You'd didn't go to the splashdown page, obviously, as information on the splashdown sites leads off-site to different places.
If you refuse to believe the differing distances of splashdown sites then just say so; you don't have to lie about what you did.
But you have mentioned actual true info; what is your standard for determining this?
@krisdevalle I never refused to believe differing distances. I refuse the Moon Walk claim because of the over whelming evidence that proves it was fake and has never been debunked.
I haven't seen a video that really proved a hoax. However I don't think we landed on the moon just for the fact that technology wasn't any near advanced enough for such a feat.
@chippedbeef08 -- It's kind of sad that kids these days don't have an appreciation for the development of technology.
Yes, they had the technology to go to the moon in 1969.
In fact, we haven't advanced very much in aerospace since then. The 747 was launched at that time and they are still building the things. There is no longer a super sonic transport flying across the Atlantic. And there is still nothing in the sky that could catch the (1964) SR71.
@nesokretep The problem is that the technology claimed by NASA back then was not a total reality. I understand your point about air craft but hey, thats air craft. No comparison to the claims made by NASA. Claims without any substantial proof after tons and tons of evidence that more than suggests it was all staged.
@timrocket2008 -- All of the technology that Apollo used was real and was known widely by many thousands of people to be real. Claims without any substantial proof that it was supposedly "not real" are silly.
@nesokretep Yea a Pocket calculator that was the size of their heads was the real technology they had. Nothing more advanced than that except for fictional Technology. It was all Faked. Even the Mars lander pictures were all taken on Earth and they just used a Red Cameras lens filter.
@Kizor I don't care about your opinions. Only NASA shills have that task. I am just stating facts. Once you see the capsule on film being dropped in the ocean, then you know it was all fake. Just a big show. There is 0% chance for the camera to be in the same location at that exact time if it were real.
@timrocket2008 -- The Apollo re-entry capsules were steerable, just like the Gemini and Mercury capsules before them. They did not just come down in some random location in the ocean. They landed in particular, pre-determined landing zones with a fleet of ships ready to pick them up.
There was an almost 100% chance that the camera would be there to record them coming down.
@nesokretep LOL @ "steerable" Yea right. On "Re-entry" they just aimed for the ship in the water! lol Steer towards that Camera guy! You are pathetic.
@timrocket2008 -- Yes. Do you know how they steered the Apollo capsule? Most people who have actually studied rockets know how it was steered. The aerodymanics of it are actually kind of interesting.
Yes, they aimed for the area of the ocean where the fleet of ships was waiting for them.
See if you can look up and understand how the control system worked.
And no, a pocket calculator is not all they had for computing power for the mission. They had a huge amount of computing power.
People who don't understand how things function can only present insults if they don't believe something or if they wish to make an argument about it.
For instance, look at the recent insult about the computing technology available to the Apollo missions, calling it a "pocket calculator."
The actual fact of the matter is that in 1969 they had very powerful mainframe computers back at Mission Control that did most of the computational work. They didn't need a powerful onboard computer.
@nesokretep What else is pathetic is that you say they didn't need a "powerful" computer on board and that they just steered the capsule right to the Camera guy so that he can film them dropping into the water.
Fact is, the capsule was dropped from a plane. Thats how they did it and how they knew where it would be splashing down. All just a big show.
@timrocket2008 -- So, since you are such an expert on the matter, you can let people know what they would have needed a "powerful" onboard computer for that they could not have gotten from the mainframes in Houston.
Please be specific. What calculations would they have needed to do that they could not have done in Houston?
(Or do you just make up stories to support your claims?)
@nesokretep You are supporting NASA's story. I'm not making up "stories" You make no sense whatsoever. You say they steered the capsule to right exactly where they wanted to land but they landed 2000 miles away from Land yet you say they were not random. To me, you have no common sense.
Excuse me...at 0:36, who filmed the lunar module leaving for the last time? I mean, the camera is obviously being operated by someone....it follows the lunar module upwards....Did they leave someone there to hold the fort???
chemfast 5 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They faked the moon landings in a studio. Here's a link so some of the evidence.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
Cosmored 1 month ago
I am very happy to see the vidoe Apollo17 Last men on the moon from you, hopefully the others also are happy for You
Ondelendo 1 month ago
I Love The Video Apollo17 Last men on the moon Lunar Lift Off It Can Increase My Knowledge
bebeheuy 1 month ago
Nice Video Apollo17 Last men on the moon; Lunar Lift Off That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You
willamricard 1 month ago
I Really Like The Video Apollo17 Last men on the moon Lunar Lift Off Dec From Your
imegatrone 1 month ago
Your Video Apollo17 Last men on the moon; Lunar Lift Off Dec Is Very Useful Sharing
bundawartini 1 month ago
i belive we did go to the moon but 0:32 when they launched back to earth, it looked kinda fake. just saying.
TokiKatChannel 2 months ago
who was that guy which stay to take video of the liftoff??
qlli100 3 months ago
@qlli100 Why do you think someone has to be there to tape it?
krisdevalle 3 months ago
@krisdevalle no point arguing with idiots that are oblivious to technology.
strangerindanger 3 months ago
@krisdevalle dude, that footage is from their rover. They pointed the camera and the rover toward the lunar module before the left
jpourkav 3 months ago
@qlli100 It was a remote-controlled camera, that's why the timing is so bad on the earlier lift-offs; I assume that it would be very hard to synchronize the camera movements perfectly when you have to time it according to the delays.
Laurelindo 1 month ago
Cussit I wish it was possible for my kid to be an astronaut still.
dmorl 3 months ago
@pgioffre
Let's put in a theory you can understand.
The mind-control agents are stored on there, but the illuminatti forgot to put the tapes showing the mission on the hologram airplanes that were headed for the explosive-laden twin towers.
Soopahkoopah101 4 months ago
@pgioffre -- hoax-theory believers are sheep who swallow whatever cool-sounding story someone makes up that makes them feel like they have some sort of special knowledge. All this fancy technology is a mystery to them because they don't do any actual research.
People who understand engineering understand how the various parts of the Apollo project worked.
There is nothing really mysterious about it.
And it's fairly easy to prove that all the main hoax-theory promoters are frauds.
prosperomage 4 months ago
@prosperomage and not just frauds, they're so deeply hypnotized by the hoax advocates that they are practically blindfolded when it comes to sane scientific conversation. ask any hoaxer about the physics of sending the lm+cm from the earth orbit to the moon and they'll start using language the same as fiction writers do in writing their new work!
once even i used to think apollo was fake, but after proper study, the conclusion's obvius - apollo did take place; no evidence denying the facts!
zambi007i 4 months ago
@pgioffre Who ever thinks it was real,Is a Swallower....lol.
TheDrac3000 4 months ago in playlist apollo
Lol this are the same graphics as king kong 1933
djhappyyyyy 5 months ago
@djhappyyyyy ... OK smart guy who knows everything about video.
How would they have "faked" the motion of the astronauts? Yeah, I know, you'll say "slow motion & wire suspension."
But you don't have an answer for the motion of the dust that is the same as the astronauts. No, you can't do it with just slow motion alone. Look at the parabolic trajectory of the astronauts as they run. It's definitely with reduced weight.
So, if they used wires to suspend them, did they suspend the dust, too?
prosperomage 5 months ago
"Hippity-hoppity". lol I use that to describe hip-hop music. Ahh, times were better back then...
dave55811 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The moon missions were faked in a studio. Here's a link to some of the evidence.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio (dot) html
Cosmicmoron 6 months ago
Comment removed
jfortinberry 7 months ago
whos filming the lunar lander when it leaves the moon???
dalylfc 7 months ago
@dalylfc RIGHT? It clearly pans to follow the trajectory on the Lander. NASA is kicking themselves right now, they were like ''Who was in the editor in charge?'' It's all a cover up to squander billions from the public and spend it on warfare anyway. x
isitomorrowyet 7 months ago
Who is the unlucky guy that they left on the Lunar surface to film the Lander's ascent??
isitomorrowyet 7 months ago
@isitomorrowyet The camera was remotely controlled from Earth. The last 3 missions had a remote camera mounted on the lunar rover. By knowing the comms time between Earth and the moon, the operator could correctly calculate when to pan the camera based on the launch countdown.
krisdevalle 7 months ago
@dalylfc
Really? OMG Did you leave the 1st grade?
duaness 6 months ago
Do NOT join and agree with the idiot Apollo trolls............
Chev4206 7 months ago
Except for Arse-troll-brant2 who clearly is a patronising government stooge well trained in guiding and moulding IT'S deluded followers, a common thread remains amongst the rest of the idiot Apollogists.
1) Few subscribers
2) Friends are 'where??'
3) Comments range from ' good to utter shite '
4) Wikipedia and comics are their research material
5) They are probably unmarried single men still living in Mummy's house
6) Unemployed or unemployable
7) Stupid and thick
8) Sad
9) Laughable.......
Chev4206 7 months ago
@Chev4206 I find it amusing that, lacking any proper argument, you are reduced to insulting people. I'm sure your elegant denunciation of people is very convincing to anyone interested in the Apollo moon landings.
krisdevalle 7 months ago
Did the Russians ever make it to the moon?When i was in school they said the Russians and Americans were in a space race.If we ended moon landings in 72. the Russians must have caught up and eventually landed a man on the moon. right?
smithdsmit 8 months ago
@smithdsmit No, they abandoned the program. 4 of the N1 heavy lift rockets that would have done it suffered catastrophic failures on the launchpad. So they concentrated on robotic exploration, using a more reliable smaller rocket. They landed two rovers on the moon and are still the only nation to have robotically retrieved samples from another planet (the moon).
krisdevalle 8 months ago
@smithdsmit
no. It cost a lot of money for the US to land on the moon. After the US did it, the Russian gave up (their big rockets that matched Saturn V never were finished).
so the Russians did what? They sent small rovers (the Lunokhod) to the moon on smaller rockets on a FRACTION of the budget of the Apollo.
And they said "see? Americans are decadent wasteful pigs who spend a lot of money on what we soviets do for much less money!".
rogerpenna 8 months ago
@smithdsmit No. They knew that travel into and through the Van Allen radiation belts is impossible for biological entities, eg. humans. They never went for this reason amongst others, and never will nor will the massively ego-orientated, stupid and thick americans. Except within the safe confines of a film studio in area 51
Chev4206 7 months ago
@Chev4206 Dude, seriously, where did you get this crazy idea that travel through the Belts is impossible?
Not even the man who discovered them said this! There's no evidence that it would be impossible or lethal.
krisdevalle 7 months ago
@krisdevalle Fuck off and troll elsewhere you sad CUNT.
Chev4206 7 months ago
@Chev4206 hahaha, you are so funny, i just split my side laughing...
musicnick1969 7 months ago
@musicnick1969 Funny and serious. Hope you realise this, just seen your channel and am impressed. Perhaps you may wish to see what I have.....
Chev4206 7 months ago
Antihydrogen Laser PHysics Apparatus
watch?v=GoSaHiCduDc
amiasix 9 months ago
they lift off from the moon. how did they enter the earths atmosphere and how did they got dropped in the ocean?
Arayik777 10 months ago
@Arayik777 They transferred back to the Command Module in lunar orbit. It left lunar orbit and headed back to Earth. It decelerated through the atmosphere with a heat shield to both slow down and protect the astronauts. Once inside Earth's atmosphere the parachutes deployed for the water landing.
krisdevalle 10 months ago
@krisdevalle thanks for taking your time and answering.
Arayik777 10 months ago
@Arayik777
OMGWTFBBQ "how did they enter the atmosphere and how did they get dropped off in the ocean"?
The questions of a small child.
How old are you?
You are either very young or very stupid.
Blahblobify 9 months ago
I believe that american astronauts were on the moon.
Provocateurs let go in the ass.
MrSrgj 10 months ago
moon my ass....if WE did landed on the moon in 1972 why haven't we still tryied to go up there after 40 years with all new technology we have?
zdravkodren13 10 months ago
@zdravkodren13 It costs too much.
bassfrontier 10 months ago
@zdravkodren13 because its a fraud
Arayik777 10 months ago
@zdravkodren13 Why haven't we gone back to the moon?
Thank the left-wingers in government.
mikefastener 10 months ago
@zdravkodren13
because of idiot republicans who'd rather waste trillions of dollars on unnecessary wars than spend it on something worthwhile
leisulin 9 months ago
@leisulin -- Idiot democrats would also rather waste trillions.
:)
nesokretep 8 months ago
all looks so fake.
rudetoddboy 10 months ago
@rudetoddboy Why, because it doesn't look like "Star Wars"? Grow the hell up.
VanKlaunch 8 months ago
Moon hoax advocates....they are so fucked in the head......don't waste time arguing with them and they will go away. Or just do what Buzz does and punch them in the face, only harder.
TheJomogogo 10 months ago 32
@TheJomogogo Agree with you 100 % about moon hoax advocates !! I was 13 when I watched the live landings etc. Do what Buzz does punch 'em in the nose harder ... LOL What morons this world holds with conspiracy theories! GET OVER IT - GROW UP - APOLLO HAPPENED !
JohnPiperBoots 8 months ago
@JohnPiperBoots Only in films
Chev4206 7 months ago
I was 13 when they labnded on the moon and it was LIVE on TV. It is REAL to those people who disbelieve America landed on the moon.
JohnPiperBoots 11 months ago 7
@JohnPiperBoots
humans landed on the moon. One thousand years from now, nobody will know or care what primitive Earth nation landed on the moon... only that we humans did it.
rogerpenna 8 months ago
@JohnPiperBoots
I was only half when they landed on the moon last time, so I cant remember... :-)
H123Laci 7 months ago
@JohnPiperBoots Another point that the hoaxers will have a hard time "explaining" is that several stations (who assumed that the moon landings really were happening from the start) aimed their receivers at the moon - so if nobody was on the moon at that point then they wouldn't even be able to send it on television.
Laurelindo 1 month ago
Never argue or try to reason with a moon hoax advocate, just punch them in the face like Buzz Aldrin and ask "Hey! Do you see THE STARS now, motherfucker?"
TheJomogogo 11 months ago
@TheJomogogo You are a Neanderthal.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008
Let's pretend just for a moment that we have no way of knowing whether the Apollo missions to the moon were real or not. Then everyone could only decide which they WANTED to believe: 1) Man had performed his greatest achievement, EVER, or 2) Man had faked his greatest achievement (cuz he couldn't actually do it). What kind of small-minded, petty, pathetic, cowardly weasels, masquerading as human, would WANT to believe number 2 when they could choose to believe number 1?
leisulin 10 months ago
@timrocket
....It reminds me of the scene in Apollo 13 (which somebody like you thinks is total fiction) where the politicos and bureaucrats are estimating the odds of failure and disaster and will the heat shield fail and will the astronauts burn to a crisp, and the one guy mutters that "it would be the worst disaster NASA had ever experienced" and Ed Harris' character turns and says "With all due respect sir, I believe this is going to be our finest hour." ...
leisulin 10 months ago
@timrocket
...What kind of people, seriously, LIKE to believe that we're incapable of going to the moon, that it was all a hoax, that it was staged by the government (for some purpose I have yet to fathom), the glass is half empty people who can only see and imagine the negative, the worst case scenario, etc. when they could join the rest of the human race in the pride of our having accomplished that, and feel the enthusiasm for achieving even more in space exploration?
leisulin 10 months ago
@timrocket
The question is not: was it a hoax? The REAL question is: What sort of sad person would WANT to believe it was a hoax or take pleasure in thinking it was, or find that preferable to it having REALLY BEEN Man's "finest hour"?
leisulin 10 months ago
@leisulin do you really think hippy hoppity is mans finest hour? Obama our first black president and his nobel peace prize , hello, are you awake yet.
datzfast 10 months ago
@datzfast
"hippy hoppity"? Yes I do think Mankind made its greatest achievement ever in the 60s making the commitment to land humans on the Moon by the end of the decade, and then doing it successfully. I'm wide awake. I was even wider awake in the late 60s.
leisulin 10 months ago
@datzfast I couldn't even put that any better...
GUARDIANtrooper 9 months ago
@leisulin I've know billions of reasons why they would want to hoax it.
BLAGASPANTS 9 months ago
@BLAGASPANTS
Ok, let's hear just the first BILLION.
leisulin 9 months ago
@leisulin $ x 1 billion
BLAGASPANTS 9 months ago
@BLAGASPANTS
If you're going to count that ONE REASON as a billion reasons, then I want to hear the SECOND billion of your billions of reasons, one at a time. Sorry, saying $2 x 1 billion doesn't count.
leisulin 9 months ago
@nesokretep Thank you very much for the effort. Consider me thoroughly briefed. And you got to watch the Mercury, Gemini AND Apollo programs as they happened? Wow!
As for what you said about timrocket, it seems that I have interrupted a clash of the titans. Carry on.
Kizor 11 months ago
@Kizor -- "Clash of titans"? hahaha .. no.
Just a guy with a moderate interest in space exploration vs. a silly troll.
And yes, I was a little kid for Mercury. But space travel was a big thing in movies back then, so the real thing happening at the same time was fascinating to a lot of kids.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep Your problem is that you are stuck in your childhood beliefs and can not accept the fact that the US government lied about the Vietnam War, JFK and the Moon Landing Space Race WIN!
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- Your problem is that you don't understand that I opposed the Vietnam war back when it was in effect, I oppose the imperialist actions of the U.S. ever since Vietnam, I oppose the "regime change" by the U.S. government in Iraq, as well as all other "nation building" by the U.S. in other countries, I oppose the big-banking control of the U.S. and world economy.
I DO understand (and have understood since before you were born) that the U.S. government lies about these things.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- I even am opposed to the way NASA has been run for at least the past 40 years.
And in addition to the fact that I am completely opposed to blind patriotism, and I oppose pretty much every single major action of the U.S. government for the past 50 years, I ALSO understand enough of the engineering of the Apollo project to know how it functioned and how they went to the moon.
And I also understand and can compute for myself sufficient proof that major hoax-theory promoters LIE.
nesokretep 11 months ago
Moon landing believers' research never goes beyond NASA's web site. They are like religious people.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- I have never gone to the NASA web site for any facts or calculations. I don't go to clavius, either.
Well ... I did go to clavius once on the "blast crater" argument. But when I did, I just found that he had done the very same calculation that I had already done independently.
All of the ACTUAL independent research shows that the Apollo missions were real.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep Yea "all" thats why there is no one who sees it as a Hoax.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- The people who DO see it as a hoax are just using their imagination to make up supposed "facts" like you are doing with the suit pressure.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep So I guess Scientists are using their imaginations as well when they have no motive to prove it was a hoax yet just state their results of recent studies of radiation. NOT NASA studies. Actual ones. Ya know, the ones people like you totally ignore.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 This should be good; what recent studies are you referring to? Please tell us your sources.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- You have never quoted one of these "actual studies." Why not?
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep Oh yes I have you liar..."there is no way to protect a human from the forms of radiation outside of Earth's magnetosphere" Scientist Marcelo Vazquez
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- Give a reference for your Marcelo Vazquez quote and prove that it refers to something releveant to a 3-day trip to the moon.
That quote by itself proves nothing. I doubt that it is even the complete original sentence.
You can easilly lie (as I have seen you do in the past) by quoting a phrase out of context. It does your argument no good to do so, however. It only makes you look stupid when someone looks up the original statement.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep LOL explain to me why I would lie about not believing in the Moon Landings. You are such a moron.
You can also contact any Scientist and ask all kinds of questions. I have done so. You have no brains.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- I never said you lied about not believing in the moon landings.
Idiot.
Learn to read.
And after you do ... answer my request or else (as i said) you are tacitly admitting that your supposed quote was bogus.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep Ok explain how any of my quotes are bogus. All you have to do is look it up. Research, call them up on the phone, e-mail etc. No one is stopping you.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@timrocket2008 -- OK. Look up your quote: "..."there is no way to protect a human from the forms of radiation outside of Earth's magnetosphere".
According to Google, it doesn't exist on the internet.
So, as I said, if you are going to appeal to some sort of authority in your statements, then give a reference or else be called a liar.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep PPFFFT! Yea I can't read or write. I need to learn how. Mean while we are communicating on a fucking message board requiring us to read an write. You Moon Fan people have no argument and prove to me you have no brains
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- regardless of whether you can read or write, your quote still does not exist on the internet.
Did you just make it up?
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep How did you read any of my quotes if they are not on the internet?
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- Yes. Well, I DID find your "quote" being said by you. Just not by anyone else.
So if you would like to take credit for originating that sentence, then that's fine with me.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep I don't understand why you don't just contact Scientists and ask questions. You instead insist that the old NASA propaganda story is "REAL" on You Tube comments. Do you need me to give you contact info to Real Scientists? (Instead of websites) Any website that does not support your view, you simply slander.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- You cannot quote any statement by me "slandering" a web site.
What I post here is real science. I do not need to slander web sites.
I do not need to use web sites for my source of scientific information. I do know real scientists. And all scientific and engineering calculations that I post are ones that I have calculated myself.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep "I do know real scientists. And all scientific and engineering calculations" Sure you do. Thats why you are still fooled by the oldest politically manipulated science in the history of America.
What are your calculations for that?
timrocket2008 11 months ago
When you see video of the capsule landing 2000miles away from land yet still in camera distance, you know it was all just a big show. The capsule is not an airliner where it flies horizontally and can be under air traffic control. It just drops. Good luck steering it to the Air Craft carrier. Wow NASA such good luck?
NASA has the luck of the Irish. 0.0004% chance of success landing on the moon once yet 100% success rate 6 times over. Why do people believe in such obviously fake propaganda crap?
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 It doesn't drop, it's called aerobraking. When you properly calculate the orbital mechanics of a de-orbit, you can accurately determine the location of the splashdown. It is then only weather conditions that add variables. Don't let your ignorance of this topic lead to you make stupid statements. You should check that you are right before posting a comment.
And when you mention a 100% success rate, why do you ignore Apollo 13? This reduces the success rate to 80%.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle I also ignored Apollo 1 to help your side since your side always loses every debate. Explain Apollo 1. Here is what I know.
The idiots pumped in too much oxygen and it fucking exploded and Grissom burned to death. Such an idiot mistake yet the other astronauts trusted them with their lives and trusted the space suits so much they were jumping around not nervous at all even though one puncture in it would = instant death. Get real. The whole thing was fake. Its just not convincing.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 I'm not sure if you're stupid, or you deliberately get things wrong. Capsules for the Mercury and Gemini programs used a 100% oxygen mix for pressurization. Numerous missions were successful using this method. The Apollo 1 plugs out test that resulted in disaster was not because 'they pumped in too much oxygen', and for you to state this displays your deep misunderstanding of the event.
I suggest you research the actual details of the event before spinning a load of bullshit.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle Typical excuse or a wannbe explanation. "You don't know" or " you don't understand" "do research" Fucking idiots.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 To address your insane ideas about a spacesuit being punctured; are you also aware that the suits themselves comprised about 15 different layers of fabric, insulation, protective weave and so on? That the outer layer of the suit was a mylar weave that was resistant to high-speed micrometeorite impacts?
Are you so completely ignorant as to think that a spacesuit designer would design a spacesuit that was easily punctured?
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle Well the suites on the moon were never even pressurized. The ones on the ISS clearly are by comparing photos.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 And finally, the funniest thing I have read is where you have announced that 'my side' always loses every debate. Why is this funny? Because reading back through the comments, I basically see you saying stupid, ignorant shit, and me correcting you, and you ignoring the corrections because you are aware I am right.
You should try arguing FOR the Apollo landings, it is a lot easier, because we have facts and logic on our side, instead of ignorance and disbelief.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle I disagree. Your side ignores actual facts and when backed into a corner you say we are ignorant and need to research.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 I've addressed the facts you presented. If there are any you feel I have ignored, then re-iterate them. I would be happy to go over them.
Your latest idiotic theory is that the suits used on the moon weren't pressurized, and you feel you can prove this via photo comparison. Why then, are you the first person to have promoted this theory; and no-one else has mentioned it in the last 40 years?
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle So you think I am the only one who ever noticed that about the suits? You claim to be " Mr. research" how come you think that then? How come this is the first time it has been brought to your attention? You must be a newbee. lol
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 I wish you the very best of luck proving that the suits are not pressurized, based on your photo analysis. I assume you have some criteria for proving this, and I am interested in how you can tell. Saying that it is 'clear' is simply poor form; if you wish to advance a theory as crackpot as this, you really need to explain in detail how it is that you can tell, and how no other spacefaring nation has noticed this.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- You CANNOT tell anything about the pressure inside the suits just by looking at the outside because you cannot see the structure of the suit just from looking at the outside.
ALL of the so-called "evidence" of a "hoax" is made up by people who look at something, don't understand it, and then imagine their own personal version of an answer instead of actually trying to understand it.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep They are blown up like balloons on the ISS yet "on the Moon" they are all wrinkled and freely moving. Obviously not in space. Clearly on Earth.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- The "0.0004% chance of success" is just some idiot thing some guy who thought he was an "expert" pulled out of his ass. It's not based on anything. And it certainly has nothing to do with the engineering of the Apollo project.
You believe and post crap.
But you don't believe science.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep Yes. I do believe Science. Especially now/ today Scientists say there is no way to protect a Human from the forms of Radiation outside of Earth's Magnetosphere. NOTE: The Moon is outside of Earth's Magnetosphere.
So its people like you who are stuck in 1969-1972 who still cling on to the belief in the old bull shit propaganda. NOT SCIENCE.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- No. Scientists today do NOT say "there is no way to protect a Human from the forms of Radiation outside of Earth's Magnetosphere."
No actual scientist has ever said that. And you have never quoted anything to that effect from an actual source. You just enjoy making up the statement and repeating it over and over again.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep Name one Scientist who disagrees with that first off. And yes I have direct sources. Unlike you. Your source is NASA's fucking website idiot.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- What the sources HAVE said is that they are doing more studies of the types and strength of radiation on the moon.
They are doing it because studying the environment for a 3-day trip is not sufficient to detect all the radiation that would be encountered on a 6-month trip.
A level of radiation that would be insignificant and perhaps not even detected for the Apollo missions could be deadly for a 6-month stay.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep Yea, the same sources that claimed they walked on the Moon 6 times. You people are so dumb.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
Watch the video: Dark Mission 1 - NASA Moon Hoax - Analysis here on You Tube. About a few minutes after the 1 hour mark you can see how there was an artificial light source.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
Speaking of shadows. I watched video of astronaughts supposedly on the moon and one of them walking away from the sun. His shadow shrunk considerably. That proves artificial light source. Not the Sun. Yet they lied by claiming it was on the Moon.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 This only proves uneven terrain. Your shadow, in the sun, will shorten or lengthen depending on the slope you are on. On flat ground it is one length; on the side of a hill or gentle slope it is different. Think about it; it makes sense, and can be tested.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle It was right next to the Lander which is virtually, perfectly flat. And in Sunlight your shadow doesn't lengthen or shorten 5 feet in 2 seconds. If you saw the video, you wouldn't be able to honestly deny that it was artificial lighting.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 Perhaps you could include the link to the video so we could both review it.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
Speaking of shadows. I watched NASA films supposedly on the Moon and as one of the astronauts walks away from the "Sun" his shadow shrinks considerably. That proves artificial light source and definitely not the Sun.
That is clear to me that it was a simulation video used for deception. In other words, Clearly Faked.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
Why would they NOT take pictures of the stars? They had telescopic camera lenses back then.
A good answer would be because they were never really on the Moon.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 When in full sunlight the camera setting is not sufficient to capture starlight. We can see this in photographs of the Shuttle in orbit, the ISS, and other planets. I invite you to view examples to see this.
Apollo 16, however, took a UV camera and took over 200 exposures of the Earth and stars. These can also be viewed on the web if you are interested.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle Yea I know that in sunlight the exposure will be too short to pick up the stars. If it were long enough of an exposure to pick up the stars the the film would be over exposed due to the amount of Lums from the Sun.
I will have to check out the stars pictures. I don't understand why they say they never took pictures of the stars then.
Another thing I don;t understand is why Bart Sebrel claims Shadows never intersect. What would a shadow of a cross look like then?
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 Hoax believers say they never took pictures of stars because some hoax video or website told them this. We know it is not true because the Apollo 16 UV photographs exist.
Sibrel is perhaps not the expert many think him to be. Shadows can converge on Earth in the right conditions too. I can show you an example if you like.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
Once you see the film of the capsule landing in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, then you know it was all just a big show. The camera guy just happened to be there every time? Ha Ha
The capsule was dropped from a plane. That is how they did it.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
2000miles away from land= random splash down. only a mile away from a ship? 0% chance. Get real. Idiots. You have no common sense.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- I guess you didn't understand what I said. Let's take it one step at a time ...:
The world rotates.
Do you understand that the world rotates?
Do you understand that the Earth is round?
You need to start by understanding these things. If you understand them, then you can understand what I said. It will be easy for you.
The only way you will not understand what I said in my last post is if you do not understand that the world is round and that it rotates.
nesokretep 11 months ago
When people start asking for "calculations to back up your claims" you know they are a shill trying to defend NASA.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 Actually, we're just trying to make sense of your latest round of bullshit.
And if you bothered to research splashdowns, many of them were quite close to islands or the Florida coast. But that's not really your way, is it? You just invent a newer, stupider question, and decide never to check whether it could answered with a small amount of research.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle Whats this"we" crap? You wannabe debunker.You never debunked a single thing even once. You can't even debunk the stars. Actually no one has.
There were splash downs closer to land than 2000miles like one about 1000miles from land but the land was The Dominican Republic. If they can steer the capsule and land a half a mile away from the ship and helicopter, why the fuck are they 2000miles away from land? It doesn't add up because there is 0% chance they could hit a target like that.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 Because many of the splashdowns overshot. They have a safety margin. Many of them were on target too, but due to the vagaries of the atmosphere, an error margin is in place.
It's obvious to those who understand. It is also fairly easy to look up all the splashdowns that took place, compiled on wikipedia, to see how many were on target, and how many were not.
Unlike you, I do my research.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle Yea a 2000mile safety margin. Yea right For that little capsule. How ridiculous is it for them to be "over shot" yet still be in Camera range.
Do you realize how stupid you sound?
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 That's funny, I had thought it had been explained to you fairly simply. Sometimes it is on target. Sometimes it is not.
As the capsule is not guided during re-entry, and re-enters at a speed of up to 15,000mph, some margin of error is to be accepted. It is simply your ignorance that limits your understanding of this.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle Well then they must have had 100 million Camera men scattered all over the Ocean to get the shots. You are ignoring the point.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 No, I'm not. If you go to wikipedia and enter 'splashdown' you can see the entire list of splashdowns and their 'miss' distance. Since there still exists a chance for catastrophic error, the splashdown locations are far out to sea.
As the re-entry trail can be viewed from quite high up, this exists as a perfect visual indicator to spotters as to the final re-entry location. Keen spotters can then direct air traffic to the final descent location. Does this seem reasonable?
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle PFFT forget about wikipedia. That is the most unreliable source in existence. It is infested with disinformation.
I one time used information from wki in a debate about the moon landings and I was accused by 5 Moon nuts of writing the information on wiki myself!!. So I never even look at Wikipedia anymore.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 It exists as a general collection of links. The splashdown information page can be used as a reference to see where the information was gained. I am aware of the changeable nature of the site, but it is still useful as the first stop before continuing to the actual source of information.
I suggest you begin to use it that way and it becomes a more valuable resource.
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle All of the links seem to link right back to itself just to another wiki page of possible disinformation. I stay away from bull shit sites like Wikipedia and I strongly suggest you do the same.
You were fooled by NASA so a person like you is vulnerable to disinformation as actual true info.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 Now you are just being recalcitrant. You'd didn't go to the splashdown page, obviously, as information on the splashdown sites leads off-site to different places.
If you refuse to believe the differing distances of splashdown sites then just say so; you don't have to lie about what you did.
But you have mentioned actual true info; what is your standard for determining this?
krisdevalle 11 months ago
@krisdevalle I never refused to believe differing distances. I refuse the Moon Walk claim because of the over whelming evidence that proves it was fake and has never been debunked.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 Alright then; what is the most overwhelming evidence you have, and how do you know it is true?
krisdevalle 11 months ago
No. When people ask for "calculations to back up your claims" they want to see if you actually know anything about your subject.
For instance, an ignorant person might claim: "There should have been a blast crater. The fact that there was no blast crater proves it was fake."
But they CANNOT know that "there should have been a blast crater" unless they know the pressure of the thrust and the hardness of the soil.
If they cannot back up their claims, they are either ignorant or lying.
nesokretep 11 months ago
Cool beautiful great video!!!!
echozgus 1 year ago
I haven't seen a video that really proved a hoax. However I don't think we landed on the moon just for the fact that technology wasn't any near advanced enough for such a feat.
chippedbeef08 1 year ago
@chippedbeef08 -- It's kind of sad that kids these days don't have an appreciation for the development of technology.
Yes, they had the technology to go to the moon in 1969.
In fact, we haven't advanced very much in aerospace since then. The 747 was launched at that time and they are still building the things. There is no longer a super sonic transport flying across the Atlantic. And there is still nothing in the sky that could catch the (1964) SR71.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep The problem is that the technology claimed by NASA back then was not a total reality. I understand your point about air craft but hey, thats air craft. No comparison to the claims made by NASA. Claims without any substantial proof after tons and tons of evidence that more than suggests it was all staged.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- All of the technology that Apollo used was real and was known widely by many thousands of people to be real. Claims without any substantial proof that it was supposedly "not real" are silly.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep Yea a Pocket calculator that was the size of their heads was the real technology they had. Nothing more advanced than that except for fictional Technology. It was all Faked. Even the Mars lander pictures were all taken on Earth and they just used a Red Cameras lens filter.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
The fact that they filmed the capsule landing in the Ocean proves it was all just a big show. YOU have No common sense.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008 Sorry, I'm confused. Please indulge me.
How can you expect to affect opinions if you insult others, even if you're insulting them back?
And if you can't, why are you commenting?
Kizor 11 months ago
@Kizor I don't care about your opinions. Only NASA shills have that task. I am just stating facts. Once you see the capsule on film being dropped in the ocean, then you know it was all fake. Just a big show. There is 0% chance for the camera to be in the same location at that exact time if it were real.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- The Apollo re-entry capsules were steerable, just like the Gemini and Mercury capsules before them. They did not just come down in some random location in the ocean. They landed in particular, pre-determined landing zones with a fleet of ships ready to pick them up.
There was an almost 100% chance that the camera would be there to record them coming down.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep LOL @ "steerable" Yea right. On "Re-entry" they just aimed for the ship in the water! lol Steer towards that Camera guy! You are pathetic.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- Yes. Do you know how they steered the Apollo capsule? Most people who have actually studied rockets know how it was steered. The aerodymanics of it are actually kind of interesting.
Yes, they aimed for the area of the ocean where the fleet of ships was waiting for them.
See if you can look up and understand how the control system worked.
And no, a pocket calculator is not all they had for computing power for the mission. They had a huge amount of computing power.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- It is easy to call someone "pathetic." And that is about all you can do if you yourself don't understand how something works.
It is more difficult to actually understand how things function.
It might be interesting for you to see if you can do that.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 Okay. Just curious.
Kizor 11 months ago
People who don't understand how things function can only present insults if they don't believe something or if they wish to make an argument about it.
For instance, look at the recent insult about the computing technology available to the Apollo missions, calling it a "pocket calculator."
The actual fact of the matter is that in 1969 they had very powerful mainframe computers back at Mission Control that did most of the computational work. They didn't need a powerful onboard computer.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep What else is pathetic is that you say they didn't need a "powerful" computer on board and that they just steered the capsule right to the Camera guy so that he can film them dropping into the water.
Fact is, the capsule was dropped from a plane. Thats how they did it and how they knew where it would be splashing down. All just a big show.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- So, since you are such an expert on the matter, you can let people know what they would have needed a "powerful" onboard computer for that they could not have gotten from the mainframes in Houston.
Please be specific. What calculations would they have needed to do that they could not have done in Houston?
(Or do you just make up stories to support your claims?)
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep You are supporting NASA's story. I'm not making up "stories" You make no sense whatsoever. You say they steered the capsule to right exactly where they wanted to land but they landed 2000 miles away from Land yet you say they were not random. To me, you have no common sense.
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 -- Yes. All of the U.S. manned space capsules landed in water. They had a fleet of ships standing ready to pick them up.
Your "common sense" does not work by itself. You have to try to understand how things actually work.
And yes, the capsules can be steered.
I am still waiting for you to research and see HOW they are steered. If you are actually interested in these things, you wi