it looks like it was stepped in snow or in a powder.. is there such soil with that property on earth? the footprint is way too clear. go outside and take a step in a sand. try it yourself.
Believing that the moon landing was real bases on the fact that we think the goverment is good to us, like our parents. In real life the goverment is nothing else than a shitbag full of assholes wanting our money to improve their force and power. It's ALL about money. Think of that!
You just don't get it, do you? There is NO moisture infusion in the substrate of the moon, there IS in your cement. So your footprint is still ultimately held together with water.
On the earth you cannot have a footprint without water because the particles are weathered down. On the moon however, the particles are not weathered so they can stick together without water. I am in the 7th grade and I know this. Learn your facts before you accuse people of lying.
GOOD GRIEF PEOPLE!!!!! YOU GUYS ARE HALF RETARDED AREN'T YOU. MYTH BUSTERS IS LIKE ANYTHING ELSE ON T.V. ANGLED TO CON YOU INTO HELPING WITH THEIR AGENDA. YOU PEOPLE REALLY ARE AS DUMB AS THEY SAY.
YOU GUYS GETTING TECHNICAL WANTING AN EQUATION? HAHHAHAA THIS DOESN'T NEED MATH. YOU MAKE IT SOUND LIKE IT WAS CLOSE. IT WASN'T. THE PRINT IS SO DEFINED IT'S PATHETIC. THERE HAD TO BE A LOT OF MOISTURE. i CAN OBSERVE WITH MY EYES. YES, A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. IF YOU SEE IT WITH YOUR EYES..COME ON. ITS NOT JUST DRY. IT'S 280 DEGREES DRY.IT WOULD BE CRUNCHY DRY. SO FIND THE FORMULA FOR LYING GOV. ROBBING THE PEOPLE. NO DOUBT THE ZIONIST WERE INVOLVED. GOOD GRIEF. THAT'S THE ONLY CONSTANT.
@sssssjjjj1 Have You ever handled regolith in VACUUM? There's NO air molecules between the particles, and they are much sharper than any Earth dust, due to no wind or water, so they stuck together in a way NO earthly particles can. You can't compare lunar environment to Earth. If You don't understand that, You don't understand physics.
What l don't understand is according to Darwin's evolutionary theory by now conspiracy theorists should be extinct either through silly messy accidents or their undesirability to breed with.
We can easily check this by creating a footprint in a vacuum chamber on Earth. This has been done and it does work. Furthermore, orbiting probes have detected a surprisingly large amount of water held in the soil. Even if your point was valid, which it is not, it still wouldn't matter. There are 1001 ways to prove the moon landings were all real, each of them independently verifiable and based on checkable fact.
We can easily check this by creating a footprint in a vacuum chamber on Earth. This has been done and it does work. Furthermore, orbiting probes have detected a surprisingly large amount of water held in the soil. Even if your point was valid, which it is not, it still wouldn't matter. There are 1001 ways to prove the moon landings were all real, each of them independently verifiable and based on checkable fact.
Watch the documentary "astronauts gone wild" available on YouTube to see the true nature of the clowns and criminals who participated in the Apollo moon scam.Their personalities and their behaviour is as good as a direct confession of their crimes.
mythbuster said "the irregular shape of lunar dust" this was suggested lately by NASA to answer the questions about the foot prints, see the article written by Von Braun himself on 1970, "most of the lunar soil are consist of spherical shapes 1 mm each, that explain the Armstrong slippery footing because they act as tiny ballbearings"
when you say that the moon print can not be made with out water, that is not true on the moon. it is true on the earth because the small pieces of rock on the ground when a footprint is made are more weathered down. this gives them a circular shape so on earth, to hold together they would need water. but on the moon, the small rock pieces are more square you could say. they can hold onto each other. think about it. stack some golf balls, they will fall. stack squares, they will stay. P.S. I'm11
@papparazi81 The reason that the stars do not show up on the film is that the stars are so dim that the camera cannot gather enough of their light in a short exposure. Our eyes are a lot more sensitive to light than photographic film. A good example of this is when we take a picture with a camera that is back lighted.The photographer can plainly see the features of the object but when the picture is developed, only the shadow outline can be seen of the person without any features.
please keep an open mind on both side fake/real ..some evidence make us wonder and ask the question what the hell..little thing like these can prove it all a hoax.. i have to admit it look fake to me.
@THREESIXNINE100 The dust stays together because it is made out of moon dust, which unlike earth dust, has sharp edges, because it wasn't eroded by wind and water. Sand particles on earth are almost round in shape easily falling off each other. Moon dust is rough and very fine.
Well my friends` the simple truth is that when someone tells a lie, they are really only fooling them self. In all these years man has not been back to the moon, why''
why is their no base on the moon so that man kind could do more in space.
@snowplane We never went back because the space race was political. We were in a contest with the Russians to show who was better. After the US won there was no reason to go back beyond the human desire to explore and it is hard to get funding on that basis. It is kind of a sad commentary but the main driving force for the space race was to prove US technology was better than the Russians. We can do nearly as much research in low orbit at far less cost so continuing to go to the moon was cancled
@snowplane 12 people in total have walked on the moon between '69 and '72. There is no point building a base on the moon because a) there is not much there we can learn new things from as we already brought back material from the surface and b) it is stupid to think we could use it as a "springboard" towards other planets/moons as the next nearest bodies are still so far away. It would be like moving into the house next door to be closer to the next country.
yes of course, we all know the 284th principle of universal gravitational attraction. "a sharp impression of a footprint must be made in mud or a moist material." that one's gotta be my favorite. I also wrote an equation for how dust would behave in a vacuum with 1/6 gravity of earth. It took me awhile because there were 2847492 individual grains of dust I had to consider in the calculation, but by god you're right it IS impossible
@Tewks44 on the earth it is impossible to hold a footprint without water, because they small rock pieces are round due to weathering. for example try staking golf balls without glue or tape. they will fall. however on the moon the rock pieces are sharper and not round.they can hold together. try stacking squares. it works the same way.
the first photo is not real but a animation. it is not realistic. the shoe picture is also a fake. because the darknes and the lightness is to much difference. it's to dark in the shadow. it should bemuch brighter. look close between the shadow and the sunlights you see no brighter dots but just like black and white together. non of these are real but a pc simulation. they faked everything
The source of ambient light in the shadow for pictures of the astronaut & other things on the shadow side of the LM is the light that bounces off of the lunar landscape. You can measure this light directly in all of the pictures and you can see that it is sufficient to illuminate the shadow side of objects.
The extra light for the "hot spot" on the boot is direct sunlight reflecting from the other astronaut who was taking the picture.
@nesokretep the extra light can illumunate the shoe of the astronauts who is in the ladder. but can't illuminate the footprint? how is that possible? 0:23 the footprint look at the sides it's tooooo dark to say it's a shadow. this 'shadow' must be much lighter much brighter much illuminated. because it is not far from the lightreflecting. but the astronauts shoe is at least 2 a 3 meter above the reflected moon. go to beach test it with sand. see if you can have those black shadows.
@karakan1453 -- the source of light for the "hot spot" on the boot in the picture of the astronaut on the ladder is the other astronaut. Aldrin is on the ladder. Armstrong is standing in blazing sunlight about 30 feet away. That light reflect off of his white suit and you see it on the boot.
In the picture of the foot print, you can see by the direction of the shadow that the sun is on the OTHER side of the astronaut. He has his shadow side facing in the general direction of the foot print.
I suggest an experiment. Go to a dry dusty place and I mean really dry and dusty, with the soil composed mainly of a thick layer of very fine dust. Once you get there, step on that layer. You will leave a sharp footprint.
Conspiracy theorists say they have proof of the "faked" Moon landings. It's not proof at all. Besides, there is more proof supporting the Moon landings than there will ever be against it.
If everyones so insistent that we as humans were on the moon, please prove it to me...Cause all I see is footage of BS from 40 years ago. Why does NASA not come out and say anything.
People that believe we never landed on the moon make me seriously wonder if democracy is really such a good idea. Some people are too stupid to be accountable for running their own lives, much less having a voice in anything else.
As per the principle of universal law of gravitational attraction, it is not possible to have a sharp impression by a dry powder. Request to learn the theory of gravitational attraction and write equation for this state, including all effects possible at moon through mathematical equation. One can see that dust will fall and will not stand up like in the photo.
(2of2) waterless environment of the moon, result in dust cohesion. Dust clinging to equipment on the Lunar surface has been observed to fall off as the angle to the sun changes. Obviously, like all moon hoaxers, you have done no real research before you level your charges of fraud. Stop talking like you have an education. Go get one.
@Actualviews "As per the principle....." (1of2) This is video is nothing but a pathetic bit of nonsense. In a vacuum, 'dangling bonds' in the molecules of dust material may cause small particle cohesion. Charged particles of the solar wind, and ionizing radiation in sunlight cause electrostatic charging which, particularly in the (cont'd)
@Actualviews You need to watch the Mythbusters episode that dealth with this. The footprints are real. Moon dust is different from the soil and dust on Earth due to the lack of atmospheric erosion. Even without moisture, it holds together in a vacuum and leaves sharp, distinct prints.
@Actualviews there is no mudd becasue there is no moisture. the "dust" on the moon has a slightlly differnt crystaline form that holds together weaklly in friction and static electricy. not to mention its in a VACUME and has less gravity to boot. we landed on the moon, get over it
@Actualviews well your too stupid to realize the bs science you just stated. Your lack of understanding of the properties of a powder amaze me. as a baby science experiment, step in a box of sand and see if it leaves a foot print. then come back to me little boy...
@Actualviews It is not possible to have a sharp impression in dry powder ?,empty a bag of plaster or cement on to the floor,no need to add any water,stand on it and it will blow your theory apart.
since when do "issues" prove anything? Just because you don't know how that works doesn't mean it's junk science. It just means you need more education on the matter.
This evidence is circumstantial, The regolith particles can be united by cohesion force or by adherence force, in this case, the ground particles of Moon can be united by cohesion force because cohesion forces don´t need water.
Está mais que provado que o homem nunca pisou na lua, tranmissão,temperatura,projétil,material usado,tempo,velocidade,modulo lunar?????????que confusão nada bate! tudo contradiz a realidade,eis a questão farça ou verdade???pra mim farça...
It is a fact that the crew had a bust up early in the mission when Aldrin kept farting loudly. At first they all thought it was a big joke but Adrin kept doing it. Armstrong wrote in his book that Colins refused at first to let the ascent module dock when they returned from the moon saying he could not stand the smell any longer and would go home alone. This info, along with the full transcript of the stand-off is available on the NASA site. GOOGLE words Farting Buzz. Takes you straight to it.
there is no moisture on the Moon. the dust particles are kept together by the lack of athmospheric gases (e.g. vacuum). you would never achieve such formations in dry sand on Earth because of the air the impressions would collapse. Vacuum is the key here.
we DID land on the moon the reason why flag that Niel planted in the ground waved for a good 30 seconds is cause space is a vacuum and the moon has no atmosphere like the earth has so it cant trap in moisture or gases for friction for it to stop like on earth and gravity as well has a part in it because of its low gravity it has less of a pull downwards so it wont stop as fast. QuickdrawMcShaw is right as well. THE MOON LANDING IS NOT A HOAX
So why can you look through a telescope and see all the junk they left on the moon? Or did we go to the moon and Niel just put that stuff there as part of the cover up...wait, I'm confused.
I guess since you can't make impressions in dry sand the consistency of talc at 1/6 g in your backyard you really don't know what your talking about do you?
Yeah, that famous footprint picture he was trying to disprove? Well, it seems he got a little ahead of himself. He made the mistake of trying to prove that making a footprint several inches deep, as deep as Aldrin said he could sink, would not hold a nice footprint like the one in the picture. Trouble is, the one in the picture isn't several inches deep. He's not gonna leave a clean footprint in anything by stomping in it. Not even regolith. Jarrah White is an idiot.
In fact there is a game with this footprint: There is a little rock near this footprint; on the next photo, there is a boot and also a little rock which is bigger relatively to the boot that the rock was relatively to the footprint on the previous picture; so the first thought is that the two rocks are not the same...but they are, because, if you look attentively at the artifacts around the two rocks, they are the same!!!
That means that the boot is smaller than the footprint!!! strange!
Oh, you mean Jarrah White the psychopath who thinks he's outsmarted all the scientists and physicists involved with the Apollo program? That guy thinks the Mars rover landings were fake. Trust me, dude, he's whacked out of his gourd.
The space programme works between earth and the Vann Allen radiation belt, thats where your mobile satelite wonders around. To get through the 'Vann Allen' radiation belt and to the moon, you would have to encapslate the space capsule with three foot of lead, the space suits are not anti radioative (Richard Hoagland) We have all seen 'Capricorn 1' It's a cold war scam! Dig deep and you will realise...
go buy a bag or Portland cement, It is extremely dry and extremely fine you can reproduce the exact foot print with out moisture. The hoax stuff is fun to watch but there has never been any evidence that is unexplainable.
Well said. I never thought of that comparisson. Buzz Aldrin said in an interview some time back that the fineness of the dust would be a major obstacle to extended exploration on the moons surface. The reason being that it interferred with gas seals on space suits, particularly at the points where back packs are recharged with oxygen and where they connect to the suits.
Look at the Soviet Luna probes and Lunokhod Rovers footage. There is no trick of the moon dust. On the same looks like the dust of the Soviet robots as well.
it isnt sand up there. the surface of the moon is covered in regolith. Sande particals dont stick together without water because weather are smoothed the sand grains. Regolith on the other hand is sharp and rough, alowing it to stick together without any assistence. Plus there is no wind to blow it out of shape. The foot print on the moon will out last most man made structers.
To believe they landed on the moon we have to assume that they had enough fuel to return back to orbit that's 500 k miles back are we that stupid to assume the lunar module had all that fuel on it besides how in the hell 2 parachutes can stop a speeding lunar module going 25k an hour no fricking way!
If you think about it; as the Earth is larger, as soon as the capsule begins to leave the moon's orbit, it will 'fall' toward Earth, it being of the larger mass. The barycenter of the twin system (Earth and Moon) is just underneath the Earth's crust.
Also atmospheric re-entry and the heat shield did a lot of the braking for the returning CM. Air has resistance, and friction, thus providing braking qualities.
If you were to prove this wrong then I'm happy to recant this statement.
@thunderbolt2011 the evidence for the moon landings is indisputable. Tens of thousands of people worked on the apollo project - thousands of people watched the saturn 5 rockets blast the crews into space. The russians tracked the missions all the way to the moon and back with radar, and snarfing the radio telemetry. The guy who started the lunar landing hoax craze, HE is an idiot. You are his discliple.
MrHobiecat based on the evidence right from the NASA pics and videos and the danger of space and cosmic rays and extreme temperatures on the moon it's impossible that any human has ever been on the moon don't you think that if it was that easy to go to the moon another country would have gone in the 41 years that NASA went?
@thunderbolt2011 The fact that you look at nasa photos and you dont understand what you are seeing only means you dont understand it. That is not evidence that landing on the moon is impossible. Extreem temperatures? WTH do you think they were wearing those 350 lb space suits for? Cause they look really cool?
@MrHobiecat - just because alot of people are involved, doesn't mean we ever went to the moon. An entire nation went to war based on lies. How many WMD's were found in Iraq? Not fucking ONE. Just go back to sleep and watch your "Reality TV" as if there is such a thing.
so where did all of the WMD's go? I bet Saddam had them sent to the moon, he parked them all right next to the alleged lunar landing site, because no one seems to care to point any modern technology at that area and see if the junk they supposedly left there is there at all. Right now there are some Iraqis burning around on the lunar surface in the buggy, laughing their asses off.
@UBER069 An entire nation went to war with Iraq. Are you going to tell us the war never happened? Nobody faked any WMDs to validate the war, but we certainly DID go to war. And we certainly DID go to the moon, six times, 12 men. The trails in the dirt and the bottom sections of the landers have been photographed by another countries lunar surveyer, in just the last year.
@MrHobiecat - are you fucking serious? "no one faked any WMD's" you said. Exactly how many WMD's were found in Iraq? NOT FUCKING ONE. You need to give your head a shake and unplug from the propaganda dispenser.
@UBER069 again, no one FAKED any WMDs in Iraq. GWB said his investigation found evidence, but when we got there, none were found, and no one FAKED any WMDs to pretend they did find them. Cops are accused of planting guns on innocent people after they are shot, but no one FAKED any WMDs in Iraq, and no on FAKED ANY MOON LANDINGS.
@MrHobiecat - let me guess...you were homeschooled by evolutionary idiots. one of the reasons the moon landings were real is that according to evolutionary theory there should have been several feet of moon dust on the surface - that is why they had such long landing legs and pads. but, as the pics show, the dust was only a few centimeters deep. this proves that the moon is not as old as the evolutionists claim.....too bad asshole...
@fowzie777 According to evolutionary theory there should be several feet of dust on the moon. How does that work exactly, did the dust evolve from the rocks, or did the rocks evolve from the dust? Which is more fit for survival in the environment of the moon, the rocks or the dust? Is the DNA of the dust the same as the DNA of the rocks. One more question: WTF are you talking about?!
@MrHobiecat -- Oh, good grief. Everybody knows that dust actually consists of tiny, little rock eggs.
Rock eggs (dust) on earth have many, many natural predators, like plants, and even water.
Without any natural predators the rock eggs on the moon survive to live very, very long lives and with the lack of atmosphere they do not often grow to full-sized rocks.
Therefore it is easy to calculate that after billions of years, there are many, many feet of rock eggs (dust) on the lunar surface.
I love moon hoaxers, 98% of them dont know who started the hoax, nor who they follow, most them are idiots, with the overwhelming amount of evidence pointing at the moon landing being real, these hoaxers cling to tiny garbled nonsense for what ever reason.
thankfully the guy who started it is dead. and for those of you who dont know who you follow, i'll tell you, his name was bill kaysing, (exRocketdyne librarian) who lived on his own, in a caravan with 12 cats, well done hoaxers well done!
@nasafakedit Well acted ? Hah ! It was LOUSY acting ! Totally unrealistic, inane, nonsense dialogues, conveying no sense of the dangers that would have faced, or sense of awe and wonder of being on the moon. Also, chintzy, gaudy props, with all that gold foil. The blast off from the moon looks very amateurish, almost like a high school play.
moon regolith is unique, and you wont find a similar material on earth, its attributes allow this footprint because regolith partiles are very sharp edged and stick together if sueezed just similar to concrete dust on earth
How could man have landed on the moon? He has no wings to fly there? You scientists-leses need a new educamation like the one we got, ha, God said I was right! lol
NASA cant do shit! What makes people think that 1960s era rockets can go to the Moon? If they truly went to the Moon, why are we not colonizing Mars now? Or making intersteller warships? With our 21 century "genius"? Physical inpossiblity I say.
so who do you beleive world reknown scientist vs backward mad man, i guess its the latter, do you even know who started the moon hoax theroy, do you even know who you follow...
fucking awesome dumbness of you hoaxers know no bounds!
There is no moisture on the surface of the moon. The footprint stuck because the grains of dust are very coarse and sharp. They stick together without the need for moisture, whereas grains of sand and dust on Earth need moisture because they have been weathered and are no longer coarse enough to stick to each other and stack up by themselves.
@QuickdrawMcShaw - actually it has been proven recently that the moon has a great deal of water on it. There has even been talk of a "potential" for a moonbase in the future, harvesting the water their for consumption and other things. Do you not read, or just watch ancient hoaxed footage and swallow everything you are told?
What are you, stupid? The water was found in craters at the south pole of the moon. Since the floors of these craters never see sunlight, the water never evaporates. Therefore, there is a ton of water-ice still there. There is NO water on the surface of the moon anywhere except the eternally-dark floors of these polar craters. Which is why the moon base would most likely be at the lip of one of these craters. See, I like to educate myself.
@hunchbacked Have you seen photos of Himalaya? The ground on those photos looks very different from those of Sahara. Can it all be a fake? Honestly: The surface on the Moon is not exactly the same on every spot.
What infertile crap QuickdrawMcShaw, this particular foot print isn'ta foot print at all, it's a plaster caste of a foot print cause it sit's above the surface not in it, that's clearly shown by the shadow it's casting from itself onto the surface below it where the toe end is complteely missing, which broke off after a NASA techie dropped it, and the tread is inside out, and any 5yr old can see that!
@QuickdrawMcShaw, this photo of the famous boot print is tricked with reversed perspective, it's easy to trick people just like the dancing lady spinning if you've seen it on the net, it depends on which hemisphere of your brain is dominant to cipher what you see, so if yur more left hemisphered dominant you'll see a foot print, but if your right dominant you'll see it's a cast of a foot print sitting above the surface, and NASA is using reverse psychology to make you belive its a foot print!
So you're saying that what happened is a nasa techie dropped this here plaster cast boot print, which then broke a little, and instead of just getting rid of it, they decided to take a real nice picture of it and release it to the public, thinking that none of us peon citizens would be smart enough to get wise to their scheme. Is that about right? I guess all those scientists and physicists weren't counting on YOU! ...Or it could just be a boot print.
@QuickdrawMcShaw, you've gota know what game's Freemasons play with leaving the devil in the detail, and this photo has been retouched that many time's to play with the right and left hemisphere visual fields it's pratically a joke. And no, you couldn't see it for what it really is cause your left hemisphere domiant, so it looks like a foot print to your brain, innocent children see it for what it is, a plaster caste of a boot print, and they see the truth cause they're innocent!
@QuickdrawMcShaw, look at the sharp edge formation as shown here in the vid, that's the edge of the cast, and you can see that the shadow falls from it onto the the surface below the ridge of the caste, not into it which you would expect from an embedded foot print. The thin layer created due to squeezing of the mud has been created under more pressure than just putting a foot into the dirt, it's cracked because of being pilled and pressed into a caste mould!
@QuickdrawMcShaw, well, look at the angle of the shadows on the rib treads, they are standing up from the base of the boot and casting shadows downwards, so why do you think there's such a big shadow casting down from the ridge of the broken toe end, cause it's standing above the surface, not in it! Upload the photo yourself from any NASA site and brighten the image, you'll see it stands at least an ince above the surface which prove's it's a caste, not into the surface!
Dammit, man, can we agree that the light is coming from the right side? That's all I want to know. I don't even know why I bother, seeing as how you are the ONLY hoaxer who I have ever heard cry about this issue. That tells me that you are seeing something totally different from everyone else who has ever seen this picture, right- or left-brained.
What I want to know is QuickdrawMcShaw, what happened to the right hemisphere of everyone's brain's, cause it seem's to me that there's more corrupted adults on this planet that have no right hemisphere conscious coherence activity in their right hemispheres of their brains, and only use 20% of their left hemispheres, that's like 90% less intelligent than the day they were born... so why is this planet full of criminal's that can't learn by their mistakes, especilly Nazi NASA sceintists!
For you to have the audacity to think that you've outsmarted some of the greatest minds in the world is insulting. I tried to make this a civil discussion, but if you can't answer me a simple question, I'll do it myself. The light is coming from the right judging from the rocks, bumps, and imperfections in the surface around the print. That means that an impression would have its left wall illuminated and its right wall in shadow. And that's exactly what's going on in the boot print.
The moon gets pelted with meteors and meteoroids all the time. Like, constantly. The impacts pulverize the rock and the smallest particles (i.e., dust) get thrown up the farthest, which causes them to settle back down last. So the pulverized dust is the top layer. But ask a real scientist, don't take my word for it.
@QuickdrawMcShaw So where is any video of anything striking the moon's surface? You are claiming that soo many meteorites strike the moon all the time that they actually atomize the rocky surface of the moon? Then you are saying that there are two ways to create sand and dust which are millions of years of erosion and meteor strikes? Again non of the lunar videos for its poor focus, lighting of numerous light sources and graininess show anything remotely like the amount of meteor strikes claimed
Yeah, it gets hit CONSTANTLY. Since it has a negligible atmosphere, all the meteors hit the ground instead of burning up like they do on Earth. There is no video of stuff like this because the Apollo missions covered a tiny amount of ground over a relatively tiny amount of time. And yes, meteor strikes make all kinds of dust. Tons of dust. Dust for miles. But, like I said, don't take my word for it. Ask a real scientist, if you're actually curious.
@QuickdrawMcShaw and that is my whole point. Geologists and scientists do not understand how there is sand or dust on the moon with no atmosphere and erosion. It is known that meteors are constantly striking the moon's surface but this in no way can explain why the lunar footage shows the astronauts jumping in dirt. Also there is no video evidence whatsoever of any meteor strikes. In Von Braun's original book he states that after landing on the moon you would have to dig for shelter from meteors
Did you even read my whole comment? I said that the constant meteor strikes create all the dust. Meteor strikes make huge amounts of dust. It's only natural that the smaller, lighter particles tend to be on the surface. How many REAL scientists have you asked about this?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
NASA FAKE SCIENCE In memory of the 3 astronauts that were murdered by Nasa for threatening to expose the Apollo Hoax Virgil Grissom Edward White Roger Chafee Apollo 1 Nasa will be exposed for the lying scum that they are Heil Nazi Nasa Moonlandings Filmed on planet EARTH AREA 51 dreamlandresortdotcom Directed by Kubrik Written by von BRaun the Nazi Produced by the US NWO Govt
anyhow i thought the moon upper surface has no moisture?, how can they leave a foot print without moisture content?. it is fucking impossible it would not happen.
people will believe anything they are told because of being way too patriotic!. the moon landings were fake!.
Since there is no atmosphere on the moon, grain of sand aren't suffering from errosion.
Grain of sand on earth are round because or air/water errosion over long period of time and therfore, liquid is required to make them stick.
In the other hand, grain of sand located on the moon dosen't suffer from this errosion, grain of sand aren't round and allow them to stick to eachother without the need of a liquid.
have you seen these guys on the moon dancing around and playing fucking golf and laughing and joking and singing!. dont you think they are acting way too cool?, i mean they were supposed to be 250 thousands miles away from planet earth!. they should have been fucking scared shitless looking at earth ffrom that far away in space and on the MOON!. they acted like they were on fucking vacation with not a care in the world. fake fake fake what a bunch of crap!.
Well Mr. Proud American they had been trained for the exact mission for many years prior to the event happening, They weren't on vacation they did hard scientific work. I dunno about you but that Idea of been on the moon sure doesn't scare the shit out of me, I'd love that view it'd be breath taking.
This moon hoax thing makes me think of Erich von Däniken. He must have been such an inspiration the all those who cherry pick evidence and fit it to their crackpot theories.
this has been proven wrong, no air= no wind wich = the print not moving and also when u push down in that surface gravity keeps it in place if theres no wind
it looks like it was stepped in snow or in a powder.. is there such soil with that property on earth? the footprint is way too clear. go outside and take a step in a sand. try it yourself.
IJNAkagi 1 week ago
Believing that the moon landing was real bases on the fact that we think the goverment is good to us, like our parents. In real life the goverment is nothing else than a shitbag full of assholes wanting our money to improve their force and power. It's ALL about money. Think of that!
captainhanky 1 month ago
@arobeckie
You just don't get it, do you? There is NO moisture infusion in the substrate of the moon, there IS in your cement. So your footprint is still ultimately held together with water.
All these conspiracy theorists are making me lol!
Nigh1shad3 2 months ago
i truly believe this...made in USA rt? yes i believe it.
lafite1964 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fake, as might be possible to swing the flag there is no wind particles, since the moon has no particles, but vacuum.
LeoOliveAmar 2 months ago
The rover on the other hand! Had rubber shoes, I mean! Tyres, why no similarity. LOL 7th grade. Too much WEB on your Head! LOL
Area51WasOurMoon 4 months ago
By observing this foot only took me seconds to realize it was from a plaster cast! Lol
Area51WasOurMoon 4 months ago
On the earth you cannot have a footprint without water because the particles are weathered down. On the moon however, the particles are not weathered so they can stick together without water. I am in the 7th grade and I know this. Learn your facts before you accuse people of lying.
moonfeet1 4 months ago
@YDDES have you been to the moon or just a blind blocked head? Can't you see the PLASTER CAST foot print?
Area51WasOurMoon 4 months ago
@arobekie empty both bags on the floor and stand on it and see if you your shoe can create a mount print
Area51WasOurMoon 4 months ago
@arobekie lol empty the same bag on the moon and they will crumble to dust
Area51WasOurMoon 4 months ago
@misium so, what came out of the Luna rover? Sand or Dust? Lol
Area51WasOurMoon 4 months ago
GOOD GRIEF PEOPLE!!!!! YOU GUYS ARE HALF RETARDED AREN'T YOU. MYTH BUSTERS IS LIKE ANYTHING ELSE ON T.V. ANGLED TO CON YOU INTO HELPING WITH THEIR AGENDA. YOU PEOPLE REALLY ARE AS DUMB AS THEY SAY.
sssssjjjj1 4 months ago
YOU GUYS GETTING TECHNICAL WANTING AN EQUATION? HAHHAHAA THIS DOESN'T NEED MATH. YOU MAKE IT SOUND LIKE IT WAS CLOSE. IT WASN'T. THE PRINT IS SO DEFINED IT'S PATHETIC. THERE HAD TO BE A LOT OF MOISTURE. i CAN OBSERVE WITH MY EYES. YES, A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. IF YOU SEE IT WITH YOUR EYES..COME ON. ITS NOT JUST DRY. IT'S 280 DEGREES DRY.IT WOULD BE CRUNCHY DRY. SO FIND THE FORMULA FOR LYING GOV. ROBBING THE PEOPLE. NO DOUBT THE ZIONIST WERE INVOLVED. GOOD GRIEF. THAT'S THE ONLY CONSTANT.
sssssjjjj1 4 months ago
@sssssjjjj1 Have You ever handled regolith in VACUUM? There's NO air molecules between the particles, and they are much sharper than any Earth dust, due to no wind or water, so they stuck together in a way NO earthly particles can. You can't compare lunar environment to Earth. If You don't understand that, You don't understand physics.
YDDES 4 months ago
Gravity and Water and pressured creates foot prints. Try walk on sand.
Area51WasOurMoon 4 months ago
Look at his shoes and the foot print, a mount foot print instead of a flat print. LOL
Area51WasOurMoon 4 months ago
What l don't understand is according to Darwin's evolutionary theory by now conspiracy theorists should be extinct either through silly messy accidents or their undesirability to breed with.
Spindry96 5 months ago
Have you noticed that few moon hoax believers have any education other than what they see on the inter freakin net? "duh, what is kollege"
charliegoodboy 5 months ago
those arent real pictures they are lies! LIES i tell u!
dAFTpUNK4EVER26 5 months ago
We can easily check this by creating a footprint in a vacuum chamber on Earth. This has been done and it does work. Furthermore, orbiting probes have detected a surprisingly large amount of water held in the soil. Even if your point was valid, which it is not, it still wouldn't matter. There are 1001 ways to prove the moon landings were all real, each of them independently verifiable and based on checkable fact.
RussellHorwood 5 months ago
We can easily check this by creating a footprint in a vacuum chamber on Earth. This has been done and it does work. Furthermore, orbiting probes have detected a surprisingly large amount of water held in the soil. Even if your point was valid, which it is not, it still wouldn't matter. There are 1001 ways to prove the moon landings were all real, each of them independently verifiable and based on checkable fact.
RussellHorwood 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch the documentary "astronauts gone wild" available on YouTube to see the true nature of the clowns and criminals who participated in the Apollo moon scam.Their personalities and their behaviour is as good as a direct confession of their crimes.
potrodsas 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No independent source of information exists regarding the so-called "moonlandings".
All we know from the Apollo "moonlandings" comes from NASA.
and NO ! other source of information produced anything AT ALL! about this outrageous story.
Just like CIA ,NASA is a propaganda and crime organisation at the hands of war billionaires.
America is the No1 enemy of mankind.
potrodsas 6 months ago
just watch mythbusters! low gravity and consistance of regolith and lunar dust makes this unique foot print...easy :)
jonkam10 7 months ago 2
@Actualviews who the hell told you the moon is made up of powder?
16neil 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the direct link for the article is:
://books.google.ae/books?id=VQEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq=lunar+soil+balls&source=bl&ots=ocKl86uEgx&sig=QNsc68ZIHLzTR8kyk89c8g4wT2o&hl=ar#v=onepage&q=lunar%20soil%20balls&f=false
amermahdy70 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
mythbuster said "the irregular shape of lunar dust" this was suggested lately by NASA to answer the questions about the foot prints, see the article written by Von Braun himself on 1970, "most of the lunar soil are consist of spherical shapes 1 mm each, that explain the Armstrong slippery footing because they act as tiny ballbearings"
amermahdy70 9 months ago
i know corn starch can imprint tis fine
datzfast 11 months ago
One of the finest powders I have used is gypsum or plaster. You get very sharp imprints in that.
OssyTuber 11 months ago
If you take a very fine, dry powder such as cornflour (corn starch), or Plaster of Paris, you can make very sharp impressions in it.
Also, gravity on the moon is one sixth of that on Earth, so impressions in the dust are less likely to collapse.
PhilR0gers 11 months ago
You are an ignorant. Your premise about powder and water is simply false. Can't you get educated befor you post nonsense to the world?
RolandMaurer 1 year ago
Biggest failure of a moon-landing conspiracy ever made.
Congratulations, you win!
MattHughes2011 1 year ago
Mythbusters debunked this, you faggot. Do the world a favor and delete this garbage.
topster888 1 year ago
Ha ha ha...moron.
monkeysize 1 year ago
Comment removed
THREESIXNINE100 1 year ago
when you say that the moon print can not be made with out water, that is not true on the moon. it is true on the earth because the small pieces of rock on the ground when a footprint is made are more weathered down. this gives them a circular shape so on earth, to hold together they would need water. but on the moon, the small rock pieces are more square you could say. they can hold onto each other. think about it. stack some golf balls, they will fall. stack squares, they will stay. P.S. I'm11
moonfeet1 1 year ago
ye but stil.. the galaxy is filled with milions of stars.. where are the stars in the background.. there is your proof
papparazi81 1 year ago
@papparazi81 The reason that the stars do not show up on the film is that the stars are so dim that the camera cannot gather enough of their light in a short exposure. Our eyes are a lot more sensitive to light than photographic film. A good example of this is when we take a picture with a camera that is back lighted.The photographer can plainly see the features of the object but when the picture is developed, only the shadow outline can be seen of the person without any features.
moonfeet1 1 year ago
please keep an open mind on both side fake/real ..some evidence make us wonder and ask the question what the hell..little thing like these can prove it all a hoax.. i have to admit it look fake to me.
THREESIXNINE100 1 year ago 5
@THREESIXNINE100 The dust stays together because it is made out of moon dust, which unlike earth dust, has sharp edges, because it wasn't eroded by wind and water. Sand particles on earth are almost round in shape easily falling off each other. Moon dust is rough and very fine.
misium 7 months ago
@misium Check the interview the astronauts gave on day one...
THREESIXNINE100 7 months ago
Well my friends` the simple truth is that when someone tells a lie, they are really only fooling them self. In all these years man has not been back to the moon, why''
why is their no base on the moon so that man kind could do more in space.
It does make us all wonder!
snowplane 1 year ago
@snowplane We never went back because the space race was political. We were in a contest with the Russians to show who was better. After the US won there was no reason to go back beyond the human desire to explore and it is hard to get funding on that basis. It is kind of a sad commentary but the main driving force for the space race was to prove US technology was better than the Russians. We can do nearly as much research in low orbit at far less cost so continuing to go to the moon was cancled
shananagans5 1 year ago
@snowplane 12 people in total have walked on the moon between '69 and '72. There is no point building a base on the moon because a) there is not much there we can learn new things from as we already brought back material from the surface and b) it is stupid to think we could use it as a "springboard" towards other planets/moons as the next nearest bodies are still so far away. It would be like moving into the house next door to be closer to the next country.
Russell101 1 year ago
yes of course, we all know the 284th principle of universal gravitational attraction. "a sharp impression of a footprint must be made in mud or a moist material." that one's gotta be my favorite. I also wrote an equation for how dust would behave in a vacuum with 1/6 gravity of earth. It took me awhile because there were 2847492 individual grains of dust I had to consider in the calculation, but by god you're right it IS impossible
Tewks44 1 year ago
@Tewks44 on the earth it is impossible to hold a footprint without water, because they small rock pieces are round due to weathering. for example try staking golf balls without glue or tape. they will fall. however on the moon the rock pieces are sharper and not round.they can hold together. try stacking squares. it works the same way.
moonfeet1 1 year ago
the first photo is not real but a animation. it is not realistic. the shoe picture is also a fake. because the darknes and the lightness is to much difference. it's to dark in the shadow. it should bemuch brighter. look close between the shadow and the sunlights you see no brighter dots but just like black and white together. non of these are real but a pc simulation. they faked everything
karakan1453 1 year ago
@karakan1453 -- No. Nothing was "faked."
The source of ambient light in the shadow for pictures of the astronaut & other things on the shadow side of the LM is the light that bounces off of the lunar landscape. You can measure this light directly in all of the pictures and you can see that it is sufficient to illuminate the shadow side of objects.
The extra light for the "hot spot" on the boot is direct sunlight reflecting from the other astronaut who was taking the picture.
It was all real.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep the extra light can illumunate the shoe of the astronauts who is in the ladder. but can't illuminate the footprint? how is that possible? 0:23 the footprint look at the sides it's tooooo dark to say it's a shadow. this 'shadow' must be much lighter much brighter much illuminated. because it is not far from the lightreflecting. but the astronauts shoe is at least 2 a 3 meter above the reflected moon. go to beach test it with sand. see if you can have those black shadows.
karakan1453 1 year ago
@karakan1453 -- the source of light for the "hot spot" on the boot in the picture of the astronaut on the ladder is the other astronaut. Aldrin is on the ladder. Armstrong is standing in blazing sunlight about 30 feet away. That light reflect off of his white suit and you see it on the boot.
In the picture of the foot print, you can see by the direction of the shadow that the sun is on the OTHER side of the astronaut. He has his shadow side facing in the general direction of the foot print.
nesokretep 1 year ago
I worked on the Apollo 11 flight. The footprints are real. Saw them being made.
ophir37 1 year ago
I suggest an experiment. Go to a dry dusty place and I mean really dry and dusty, with the soil composed mainly of a thick layer of very fine dust. Once you get there, step on that layer. You will leave a sharp footprint.
Conspiracy theorists say they have proof of the "faked" Moon landings. It's not proof at all. Besides, there is more proof supporting the Moon landings than there will ever be against it.
bluefury1984 1 year ago
If everyones so insistent that we as humans were on the moon, please prove it to me...Cause all I see is footage of BS from 40 years ago. Why does NASA not come out and say anything.
UgLyKoerner 1 year ago
Yet another feeble attempt to discredit the Moon landings. Do you guys get kick-backs' from the books and films sold?
Stop watchin' Fox Tv. .....it'll make you stupid.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
AMAZING!
wiiagent 1 year ago
People that believe we never landed on the moon make me seriously wonder if democracy is really such a good idea. Some people are too stupid to be accountable for running their own lives, much less having a voice in anything else.
MrHobiecat 1 year ago
As per the principle of universal law of gravitational attraction, it is not possible to have a sharp impression by a dry powder. Request to learn the theory of gravitational attraction and write equation for this state, including all effects possible at moon through mathematical equation. One can see that dust will fall and will not stand up like in the photo.
Actualviews 1 year ago
(2of2) waterless environment of the moon, result in dust cohesion. Dust clinging to equipment on the Lunar surface has been observed to fall off as the angle to the sun changes. Obviously, like all moon hoaxers, you have done no real research before you level your charges of fraud. Stop talking like you have an education. Go get one.
occhamite 1 year ago
@Actualviews "As per the principle....." (1of2) This is video is nothing but a pathetic bit of nonsense. In a vacuum, 'dangling bonds' in the molecules of dust material may cause small particle cohesion. Charged particles of the solar wind, and ionizing radiation in sunlight cause electrostatic charging which, particularly in the (cont'd)
occhamite 1 year ago
@Actualviews -- The only problem with your video is that its argument is completely bogus.
.
Especially your post here about Newton's law of universal gravitation.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@Actualviews You need to watch the Mythbusters episode that dealth with this. The footprints are real. Moon dust is different from the soil and dust on Earth due to the lack of atmospheric erosion. Even without moisture, it holds together in a vacuum and leaves sharp, distinct prints.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
@Actualviews there is no mudd becasue there is no moisture. the "dust" on the moon has a slightlly differnt crystaline form that holds together weaklly in friction and static electricy. not to mention its in a VACUME and has less gravity to boot. we landed on the moon, get over it
Damstraight68 10 months ago 2
@Actualviews well your too stupid to realize the bs science you just stated. Your lack of understanding of the properties of a powder amaze me. as a baby science experiment, step in a box of sand and see if it leaves a foot print. then come back to me little boy...
robdmhaze 9 months ago
@Actualviews Wrong.
ShroomL4D 8 months ago
@Actualviews It is not possible to have a sharp impression in dry powder ?,empty a bag of plaster or cement on to the floor,no need to add any water,stand on it and it will blow your theory apart.
arobekie 4 months ago
since when do "issues" prove anything? Just because you don't know how that works doesn't mean it's junk science. It just means you need more education on the matter.
stephanietheteacher 1 year ago
Respond to this video... theres water on moon proven
giroyagetme 1 year ago
No need to hoax a footprint. ;D
Krisando 1 year ago
This evidence is circumstantial, The regolith particles can be united by cohesion force or by adherence force, in this case, the ground particles of Moon can be united by cohesion force because cohesion forces don´t need water.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
Está mais que provado que o homem nunca pisou na lua, tranmissão,temperatura,projétil,material usado,tempo,velocidade,modulo lunar?????????que confusão nada bate! tudo contradiz a realidade,eis a questão farça ou verdade???pra mim farça...
sellane100 1 year ago
Sharp dust grains, low gravity and a vacuum combine to give this sharp of an impression. This myth has already been busted.
e1hajjaj 1 year ago
It is a fact that the crew had a bust up early in the mission when Aldrin kept farting loudly. At first they all thought it was a big joke but Adrin kept doing it. Armstrong wrote in his book that Colins refused at first to let the ascent module dock when they returned from the moon saying he could not stand the smell any longer and would go home alone. This info, along with the full transcript of the stand-off is available on the NASA site. GOOGLE words Farting Buzz. Takes you straight to it.
tpsossff 1 year ago
there is no moisture on the Moon. the dust particles are kept together by the lack of athmospheric gases (e.g. vacuum). you would never achieve such formations in dry sand on Earth because of the air the impressions would collapse. Vacuum is the key here.
Maeguk 1 year ago
fine powdered dust acts like a fluid. Corn starch almost flows like water. A Heinlein novel supposes boats would be used on the seas of fine dust.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
we DID land on the moon the reason why flag that Niel planted in the ground waved for a good 30 seconds is cause space is a vacuum and the moon has no atmosphere like the earth has so it cant trap in moisture or gases for friction for it to stop like on earth and gravity as well has a part in it because of its low gravity it has less of a pull downwards so it wont stop as fast. QuickdrawMcShaw is right as well. THE MOON LANDING IS NOT A HOAX
jonthybond 1 year ago
So why can you look through a telescope and see all the junk they left on the moon? Or did we go to the moon and Niel just put that stuff there as part of the cover up...wait, I'm confused.
Larkmcd 1 year ago
Please answer the following questionnaire:
Are you:
A) a Russian Troll
B) a Serbian Troll
C) a fat pimply 30+ yr old virgin living in your parents basement with no job and alternating between moon hoax and 911 conspiracies?
If you answered A, B or C please shoot yourself to assist with global warming and the shallowing of the gene pool.
You co-operation is appreciated. Thank you.
DumbYankies 1 year ago
so many people are jus dumb now days im jus gonna put a gun in my mouth...
MrChimpNipples 1 year ago
mythbusters has answered this point u conspriacy thoeriests
radiolaugh 1 year ago
I guess since you can't make impressions in dry sand the consistency of talc at 1/6 g in your backyard you really don't know what your talking about do you?
jib1000 1 year ago
@ItalianoAmericano
Yeah, that famous footprint picture he was trying to disprove? Well, it seems he got a little ahead of himself. He made the mistake of trying to prove that making a footprint several inches deep, as deep as Aldrin said he could sink, would not hold a nice footprint like the one in the picture. Trouble is, the one in the picture isn't several inches deep. He's not gonna leave a clean footprint in anything by stomping in it. Not even regolith. Jarrah White is an idiot.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
In fact there is a game with this footprint: There is a little rock near this footprint; on the next photo, there is a boot and also a little rock which is bigger relatively to the boot that the rock was relatively to the footprint on the previous picture; so the first thought is that the two rocks are not the same...but they are, because, if you look attentively at the artifacts around the two rocks, they are the same!!!
That means that the boot is smaller than the footprint!!! strange!
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@ItalianoAmericano
Oh, you mean Jarrah White the psychopath who thinks he's outsmarted all the scientists and physicists involved with the Apollo program? That guy thinks the Mars rover landings were fake. Trust me, dude, he's whacked out of his gourd.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The space programme works between earth and the Vann Allen radiation belt, thats where your mobile satelite wonders around. To get through the 'Vann Allen' radiation belt and to the moon, you would have to encapslate the space capsule with three foot of lead, the space suits are not anti radioative (Richard Hoagland) We have all seen 'Capricorn 1' It's a cold war scam! Dig deep and you will realise...
petroneva 1 year ago
go buy a bag or Portland cement, It is extremely dry and extremely fine you can reproduce the exact foot print with out moisture. The hoax stuff is fun to watch but there has never been any evidence that is unexplainable.
jacksonsdaddy 1 year ago
@jacksonsdaddy
Well said. I never thought of that comparisson. Buzz Aldrin said in an interview some time back that the fineness of the dust would be a major obstacle to extended exploration on the moons surface. The reason being that it interferred with gas seals on space suits, particularly at the points where back packs are recharged with oxygen and where they connect to the suits.
tpsossff 1 year ago
mr uploader.. b4 u talk stupid things pls inform urself ok? go watch the MythBusters documentary and after that come and post videos on youtube
predattak 1 year ago
Look at the Soviet Luna probes and Lunokhod Rovers footage. There is no trick of the moon dust. On the same looks like the dust of the Soviet robots as well.
gothmog1976 1 year ago
4 words. We will never know
fxcat123 1 year ago
it isnt sand up there. the surface of the moon is covered in regolith. Sande particals dont stick together without water because weather are smoothed the sand grains. Regolith on the other hand is sharp and rough, alowing it to stick together without any assistence. Plus there is no wind to blow it out of shape. The foot print on the moon will out last most man made structers.
nopnop08 2 years ago 3
Play with some volcanic ash and you will soon come to appreciate how full of shit the author of this video is.
carywat 2 years ago
To believe they landed on the moon we have to assume that they had enough fuel to return back to orbit that's 500 k miles back are we that stupid to assume the lunar module had all that fuel on it besides how in the hell 2 parachutes can stop a speeding lunar module going 25k an hour no fricking way!
thunderbolt2011 2 years ago
If you think about it; as the Earth is larger, as soon as the capsule begins to leave the moon's orbit, it will 'fall' toward Earth, it being of the larger mass. The barycenter of the twin system (Earth and Moon) is just underneath the Earth's crust.
Also atmospheric re-entry and the heat shield did a lot of the braking for the returning CM. Air has resistance, and friction, thus providing braking qualities.
If you were to prove this wrong then I'm happy to recant this statement.
krisdevalle 2 years ago
@thunderbolt2011 Let me guess, you were homeschooled by religious idiots?
MrHobiecat 1 year ago 7
Idiots are the ones that believe everything they are told so figure it out!
thunderbolt2011 1 year ago
@thunderbolt2011 the evidence for the moon landings is indisputable. Tens of thousands of people worked on the apollo project - thousands of people watched the saturn 5 rockets blast the crews into space. The russians tracked the missions all the way to the moon and back with radar, and snarfing the radio telemetry. The guy who started the lunar landing hoax craze, HE is an idiot. You are his discliple.
MrHobiecat 1 year ago
MrHobiecat based on the evidence right from the NASA pics and videos and the danger of space and cosmic rays and extreme temperatures on the moon it's impossible that any human has ever been on the moon don't you think that if it was that easy to go to the moon another country would have gone in the 41 years that NASA went?
thunderbolt2011 1 year ago
@thunderbolt2011 The fact that you look at nasa photos and you dont understand what you are seeing only means you dont understand it. That is not evidence that landing on the moon is impossible. Extreem temperatures? WTH do you think they were wearing those 350 lb space suits for? Cause they look really cool?
MrHobiecat 1 year ago
@MrHobiecat - just because alot of people are involved, doesn't mean we ever went to the moon. An entire nation went to war based on lies. How many WMD's were found in Iraq? Not fucking ONE. Just go back to sleep and watch your "Reality TV" as if there is such a thing.
UBER069 1 year ago
so where did all of the WMD's go? I bet Saddam had them sent to the moon, he parked them all right next to the alleged lunar landing site, because no one seems to care to point any modern technology at that area and see if the junk they supposedly left there is there at all. Right now there are some Iraqis burning around on the lunar surface in the buggy, laughing their asses off.
UBER069 1 year ago
@UBER069 An entire nation went to war with Iraq. Are you going to tell us the war never happened? Nobody faked any WMDs to validate the war, but we certainly DID go to war. And we certainly DID go to the moon, six times, 12 men. The trails in the dirt and the bottom sections of the landers have been photographed by another countries lunar surveyer, in just the last year.
MrHobiecat 1 year ago
@MrHobiecat - are you fucking serious? "no one faked any WMD's" you said. Exactly how many WMD's were found in Iraq? NOT FUCKING ONE. You need to give your head a shake and unplug from the propaganda dispenser.
UBER069 1 year ago
@UBER069 again, no one FAKED any WMDs in Iraq. GWB said his investigation found evidence, but when we got there, none were found, and no one FAKED any WMDs to pretend they did find them. Cops are accused of planting guns on innocent people after they are shot, but no one FAKED any WMDs in Iraq, and no on FAKED ANY MOON LANDINGS.
MrHobiecat 1 year ago
@MrHobiecat hahahaha that was funny.. he probably was
guardfish123 1 year ago
@MrHobiecat - let me guess...you were homeschooled by evolutionary idiots. one of the reasons the moon landings were real is that according to evolutionary theory there should have been several feet of moon dust on the surface - that is why they had such long landing legs and pads. but, as the pics show, the dust was only a few centimeters deep. this proves that the moon is not as old as the evolutionists claim.....too bad asshole...
fowzie777 1 year ago
@fowzie777 According to evolutionary theory there should be several feet of dust on the moon. How does that work exactly, did the dust evolve from the rocks, or did the rocks evolve from the dust? Which is more fit for survival in the environment of the moon, the rocks or the dust? Is the DNA of the dust the same as the DNA of the rocks. One more question: WTF are you talking about?!
MrHobiecat 1 year ago
@MrHobiecat -- Oh, good grief. Everybody knows that dust actually consists of tiny, little rock eggs.
Rock eggs (dust) on earth have many, many natural predators, like plants, and even water.
Without any natural predators the rock eggs on the moon survive to live very, very long lives and with the lack of atmosphere they do not often grow to full-sized rocks.
Therefore it is easy to calculate that after billions of years, there are many, many feet of rock eggs (dust) on the lunar surface.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@fowzie777 >>"according to evolutionary theory there should have been several feet of moon dust on the surface"<<
-------------------------------------------
Even creationists must be laughing when they read this.....
teddysalad65 1 year ago 11
Except evolution is a LIE!
toffeetigerkimba 4 months ago
HOAX OF THE CENTURY
Nasa Mickey Mouse moonlandings
astronaut monkeys running around on the earth pretending to be on the moon
Nasa is Sick, stealing $Billions from the American taxpayers
Moon Hoax
nasafakedit 2 years ago
I love moon hoaxers, 98% of them dont know who started the hoax, nor who they follow, most them are idiots, with the overwhelming amount of evidence pointing at the moon landing being real, these hoaxers cling to tiny garbled nonsense for what ever reason.
thankfully the guy who started it is dead. and for those of you who dont know who you follow, i'll tell you, his name was bill kaysing, (exRocketdyne librarian) who lived on his own, in a caravan with 12 cats, well done hoaxers well done!
TheeBaker 2 years ago
Fake it Nasa
nasafakedit 2 years ago
nasa tells lies 247
nasafakeshit 2 years ago
@nasafakedit Well acted ? Hah ! It was LOUSY acting ! Totally unrealistic, inane, nonsense dialogues, conveying no sense of the dangers that would have faced, or sense of awe and wonder of being on the moon. Also, chintzy, gaudy props, with all that gold foil. The blast off from the moon looks very amateurish, almost like a high school play.
mooninquirer 2 years ago
@mooninquirer
Its unbelievable how juvenile these fake astronauts are. They sound like 10 year old kids
nasafakedit 2 years ago
Apparently there was a guy with a camera waiting to capture this pic so I say the the guy with the camera was first to step on the moon get it?
thunderbolt2011 2 years ago
Lol yea got it
nasafakedit 2 years ago
did you read alot of bill kaysings stuff? do you even know who he is? do you know who you follow. lmao hoax fucking awesome.
love it when ppl dont listen to world reknown scientists, and go, nah, ah the guy whos mad, now he has suttin to say..
fucking rofl
TheeBaker 2 years ago
moon regolith is unique, and you wont find a similar material on earth, its attributes allow this footprint because regolith partiles are very sharp edged and stick together if sueezed just similar to concrete dust on earth
detefetel12 2 years ago
How could man have landed on the moon? He has no wings to fly there? You scientists-leses need a new educamation like the one we got, ha, God said I was right! lol
(by the way, that was satire)
beyondbedandbathisme 2 years ago 2
are you an idiot ? we had 5 moon landings,,,,so they faked 5,,,,,yeah, and O.J. was framed.
En0ErUP 2 years ago
6 moon landing!
TheeBaker 2 years ago
NASA cant do shit! What makes people think that 1960s era rockets can go to the Moon? If they truly went to the Moon, why are we not colonizing Mars now? Or making intersteller warships? With our 21 century "genius"? Physical inpossiblity I say.
DudemanClide 2 years ago
Because we don't have the tecnology to be Colonizing anything at the moment.
GonzoZodiac 2 years ago
@DudemanClide
OK... YOU do it smart arse!
malpaul 2 years ago
so who do you beleive world reknown scientist vs backward mad man, i guess its the latter, do you even know who started the moon hoax theroy, do you even know who you follow...
fucking awesome dumbness of you hoaxers know no bounds!
TheeBaker 2 years ago
There is no moisture on the surface of the moon. The footprint stuck because the grains of dust are very coarse and sharp. They stick together without the need for moisture, whereas grains of sand and dust on Earth need moisture because they have been weathered and are no longer coarse enough to stick to each other and stack up by themselves.
Just like vava54own said.
How's that book-learnin' coming along, hoaxers?
QuickdrawMcShaw 2 years ago 12
@QuickdrawMcShaw - actually it has been proven recently that the moon has a great deal of water on it. There has even been talk of a "potential" for a moonbase in the future, harvesting the water their for consumption and other things. Do you not read, or just watch ancient hoaxed footage and swallow everything you are told?
UBER069 1 year ago
@UBER069
What are you, stupid? The water was found in craters at the south pole of the moon. Since the floors of these craters never see sunlight, the water never evaporates. Therefore, there is a ton of water-ice still there. There is NO water on the surface of the moon anywhere except the eternally-dark floors of these polar craters. Which is why the moon base would most likely be at the lip of one of these craters. See, I like to educate myself.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw
Have you seen photos of Surveyor?
The ground of the moon looks very different, it appears to be rocky.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked Have you seen photos of Himalaya? The ground on those photos looks very different from those of Sahara. Can it all be a fake? Honestly: The surface on the Moon is not exactly the same on every spot.
YDDES 1 year ago
What infertile crap QuickdrawMcShaw, this particular foot print isn'ta foot print at all, it's a plaster caste of a foot print cause it sit's above the surface not in it, that's clearly shown by the shadow it's casting from itself onto the surface below it where the toe end is complteely missing, which broke off after a NASA techie dropped it, and the tread is inside out, and any 5yr old can see that!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
Haha good one
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw, this photo of the famous boot print is tricked with reversed perspective, it's easy to trick people just like the dancing lady spinning if you've seen it on the net, it depends on which hemisphere of your brain is dominant to cipher what you see, so if yur more left hemisphered dominant you'll see a foot print, but if your right dominant you'll see it's a cast of a foot print sitting above the surface, and NASA is using reverse psychology to make you belive its a foot print!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
So you're saying that what happened is a nasa techie dropped this here plaster cast boot print, which then broke a little, and instead of just getting rid of it, they decided to take a real nice picture of it and release it to the public, thinking that none of us peon citizens would be smart enough to get wise to their scheme. Is that about right? I guess all those scientists and physicists weren't counting on YOU! ...Or it could just be a boot print.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw, you've gota know what game's Freemasons play with leaving the devil in the detail, and this photo has been retouched that many time's to play with the right and left hemisphere visual fields it's pratically a joke. And no, you couldn't see it for what it really is cause your left hemisphere domiant, so it looks like a foot print to your brain, innocent children see it for what it is, a plaster caste of a boot print, and they see the truth cause they're innocent!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw , the devil in te detail is the person that made that plaster caste for NASA's fake moon mission!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw, look at the sharp edge formation as shown here in the vid, that's the edge of the cast, and you can see that the shadow falls from it onto the the surface below the ridge of the caste, not into it which you would expect from an embedded foot print. The thin layer created due to squeezing of the mud has been created under more pressure than just putting a foot into the dirt, it's cracked because of being pilled and pressed into a caste mould!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
I think I see what you're looking at. Are you seeing the picture with the light coming from the right side?
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw, well, look at the angle of the shadows on the rib treads, they are standing up from the base of the boot and casting shadows downwards, so why do you think there's such a big shadow casting down from the ridge of the broken toe end, cause it's standing above the surface, not in it! Upload the photo yourself from any NASA site and brighten the image, you'll see it stands at least an ince above the surface which prove's it's a caste, not into the surface!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
It all depends on which direction the light is coming from. Tell me that.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw, the tread is inside out, back to front, the wrong way round to the foot prints made by the same boots in dirt, can't you see it?
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
Dammit, man, can we agree that the light is coming from the right side? That's all I want to know. I don't even know why I bother, seeing as how you are the ONLY hoaxer who I have ever heard cry about this issue. That tells me that you are seeing something totally different from everyone else who has ever seen this picture, right- or left-brained.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw, nope, okey dokey!
KaOssis 1 year ago
What I want to know is QuickdrawMcShaw, what happened to the right hemisphere of everyone's brain's, cause it seem's to me that there's more corrupted adults on this planet that have no right hemisphere conscious coherence activity in their right hemispheres of their brains, and only use 20% of their left hemispheres, that's like 90% less intelligent than the day they were born... so why is this planet full of criminal's that can't learn by their mistakes, especilly Nazi NASA sceintists!
KaOssis 1 year ago
@KaOssis
For you to have the audacity to think that you've outsmarted some of the greatest minds in the world is insulting. I tried to make this a civil discussion, but if you can't answer me a simple question, I'll do it myself. The light is coming from the right judging from the rocks, bumps, and imperfections in the surface around the print. That means that an impression would have its left wall illuminated and its right wall in shadow. And that's exactly what's going on in the boot print.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw Why is there dust on the moon? According to geologist you need atmosphere and pressure to create erosion over a long time.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole
The moon gets pelted with meteors and meteoroids all the time. Like, constantly. The impacts pulverize the rock and the smallest particles (i.e., dust) get thrown up the farthest, which causes them to settle back down last. So the pulverized dust is the top layer. But ask a real scientist, don't take my word for it.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw So where is any video of anything striking the moon's surface? You are claiming that soo many meteorites strike the moon all the time that they actually atomize the rocky surface of the moon? Then you are saying that there are two ways to create sand and dust which are millions of years of erosion and meteor strikes? Again non of the lunar videos for its poor focus, lighting of numerous light sources and graininess show anything remotely like the amount of meteor strikes claimed
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole
Yeah, it gets hit CONSTANTLY. Since it has a negligible atmosphere, all the meteors hit the ground instead of burning up like they do on Earth. There is no video of stuff like this because the Apollo missions covered a tiny amount of ground over a relatively tiny amount of time. And yes, meteor strikes make all kinds of dust. Tons of dust. Dust for miles. But, like I said, don't take my word for it. Ask a real scientist, if you're actually curious.
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
@QuickdrawMcShaw and that is my whole point. Geologists and scientists do not understand how there is sand or dust on the moon with no atmosphere and erosion. It is known that meteors are constantly striking the moon's surface but this in no way can explain why the lunar footage shows the astronauts jumping in dirt. Also there is no video evidence whatsoever of any meteor strikes. In Von Braun's original book he states that after landing on the moon you would have to dig for shelter from meteors
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole
Did you even read my whole comment? I said that the constant meteor strikes create all the dust. Meteor strikes make huge amounts of dust. It's only natural that the smaller, lighter particles tend to be on the surface. How many REAL scientists have you asked about this?
QuickdrawMcShaw 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
humanmonkeyworld 2 years ago
That seals it for me people...geat post!!
TheComtesse 2 years ago
that moon soil must be as damp has a nymphomaniacs minge.
oilpainter40 2 years ago
anyhow i thought the moon upper surface has no moisture?, how can they leave a foot print without moisture content?. it is fucking impossible it would not happen.
people will believe anything they are told because of being way too patriotic!. the moon landings were fake!.
AmericanProudGuy 2 years ago 2
Since there is no atmosphere on the moon, grain of sand aren't suffering from errosion.
Grain of sand on earth are round because or air/water errosion over long period of time and therfore, liquid is required to make them stick.
In the other hand, grain of sand located on the moon dosen't suffer from this errosion, grain of sand aren't round and allow them to stick to eachother without the need of a liquid.
Go listen to MythBuster.
vava54own 2 years ago
have you seen these guys on the moon dancing around and playing fucking golf and laughing and joking and singing!. dont you think they are acting way too cool?, i mean they were supposed to be 250 thousands miles away from planet earth!. they should have been fucking scared shitless looking at earth ffrom that far away in space and on the MOON!. they acted like they were on fucking vacation with not a care in the world. fake fake fake what a bunch of crap!.
AmericanProudGuy 2 years ago
Well Mr. Proud American they had been trained for the exact mission for many years prior to the event happening, They weren't on vacation they did hard scientific work. I dunno about you but that Idea of been on the moon sure doesn't scare the shit out of me, I'd love that view it'd be breath taking.
GonzoZodiac 2 years ago
@AmericanProudGuy
Ever heard of the right stuff? Something you will never have buddy.
malpaul 2 years ago
IF YOU REALLY THINK IT'S A HOAX WATCH THIS VID.. made by sum next scientist's or somthing.. but it's very informational and stuff.. LOL
watch?v=_-W9CO1k7UY&feature=related
SandGorak 2 years ago
This moon hoax thing makes me think of Erich von Däniken. He must have been such an inspiration the all those who cherry pick evidence and fit it to their crackpot theories.
MarcusCardiff 2 years ago
this has been proven wrong, no air= no wind wich = the print not moving and also when u push down in that surface gravity keeps it in place if theres no wind
OverLordErIcH 2 years ago
hahah fake
1- no air on da moon
2 all the shades are diffrent!!
3-the pics are edited coz of the + (only on pics)
4- well thts all i know :P
HeidiHoeEre07 2 years ago