@johnmo752 .. The stars should be seen when the gain is turned up on the fake lunar sky in the fake Apollo photos.. They're not there though .. What is there, is the evidence of the scotchlite screens that are part of the front screen projection special effects, used to stage the Apollo photography.
part one from shill why there are no tracks involving LR ...
Okay, you wanted an answer, although I don't know why I should bother, as any explanation will be ignored. There are many reasons there may not be tracks at all. Could be that the rover was built on the spot photographed or moved to the spot. It would explain the extraordinary amount of footprints around it. The moon dust could cover the tracks.
(part 2) .lmfao, Im using your ridic answer in my book, would you be so kind to give me you full name and you will be quoted ... Im still drying my tears, "built it there?" it came off the LM already assembled, but then again you are an expert and wont believe me, and also they happened to "misplace" the blueprints for the LR, but again Im sure you knew that, and oh yeah they lost all the original tapes/films to all missions but you knew that too, right ... nasa genius that loses everything :)
What a waste. The video proves that a footprint made on Earth does not look like one made on the Moon. However, the original Apollo photo, since it was taken on the Moon, already proved that point.
@straydog02 An accusation by someone is not proof of anything. The fact that real events can be simulated does not prove that real events were simulated. You have no facts to support your side of the argument.
NASA's word is much more reliable than the habitual liars within the Fortean press and "alternative media". The moon hoax proponents, notably Kaysing and Rene, make (or made) their income by spreading misinformation and slander.
@iop39531 .. Unfortunately for you ( and everyone else ) Kaysing and Rene were not the liars.. Nor were they the ones spreading the misinformation... That appears to be your job.
Like Bill Kaysing once said "The Apollo Hoax evidence is not just one thing , it's cumulative .. There's more evidence to prove Apollo did not happen as advertised, than there is it did.
You're entitled to believe whatever you choose, but if you think the Apollo fraud hasn't been proven, you're sadly mistaken.
@straydog02 So, you are reduced to quoting a known liar. As I stated you have no proof - absolutely none, thay the Apollo missions were faked. There is a simple reason why you have no proof: they were real historical events that generated reams of documentation and left physical evidence behind.
Kaysing never presented _any_ evidence. He only presented his unqualified, and incorrect, opinions. These were all debunked over 30 years ago.
@iop39531 .. Kaysing had no reason to lie .. Neither did Rene.. Which means the liars are NASA, the Apollo astroNOTS and gullible, clueless little tools like you..
The hoax has been proven on every level possible.
" Kaysing had no reason to lie .. Neither did Rene'".
LOL! You are very gullible. Primary reasons: money and (to some extent) fame. Secondary reasons: to evangelize a political and/or social position.
Without the Moon Hoax Lie, Kaysing was just an improvished, failed author of books no one bothered to read. With it, he managed to the rent on his trailer park spot (until he got evicted) and got to appear on TV.
Tell you what, straydog02, I challange you to talk about ONE, and ONLY one bit of 'evidence' at a time, stay on topic, and be adult about it. Let's just see how far THAT will get you.
@edmfw .. NASA, the Apollo astronauts and their obsessed defenders are proven liars, so there's plenty to apologize about.. The only reality of Project Apollo is that was a 30 billion dollar US government propaganda scam.
@straydog02 I am sorry that reality does not agree with your fantasy world. I am sorry that human race includes people foolish enough to take Jarrah White seriously.
Frankly, the gullibility of people like you scares me. it is easy to how Bin Laden or Hitler were able to mislead so many people.
@edmfw .. The official Apollo record is the fantasy, not the hoax evidence ... When it comes to gullibility, NASA and the US government count on clueless people just like you to keep their propaganda myths alive.
As for the Boogeyman bin Laden, he's just another American propaganda myth who was kept alive until the polital powers that be decided he needed to be dead.. As for Hitler, it was his evil Nazi scientists who ran NASA during Project Apollo.
@straydog02 Not true. You are either a fool or a liar. I assume a fool because you are gullible enough to believe the nonsense generated by a lunatic fringe.
You're confusing non-ionizing radiation with ionizing radiation.
I'm not going to say something like read about radiation, they have books about radiation with really big print and not as many words as they have pictures.
No..I wanna' thank you for sucking me into this Moon hoax fray, it's great! Like hunting rabbits.
Arguing with someone who really knows and loves what they're talking about makes you frustrated doesn't it.
Isn't it amazing the VA Belts are more intense than the solar wind.
@Tweekerhead ... You're welcome, though I don't remember sucking you into making an utter fool of yourself here 24/7 ... but it is a real treat to see someone as ignorant as you are, pretend to know about subjects like deep space radiation.. and then project the level of your reading skills by describing books with big print and pictures... LOL
Watching un4given1 wipe the floor with you on this subject was a hoot!
Of all the Apollogist clowns, you are definately the dumbest.
@straydog02 Tweekboy hasn't the first clue about the true environment of space, or else he would have shut up long ago. Constant visits to baut to get his disinformation is his idea of research. Notice trolls like our geekboy forget to mention the many types of GCR's ON TOP of the Solar radiation! Gamma Ray Bursts being one of the events they like to ignore completely. Especially because of the inability to properly shield oneself from again, DEADLY RADIATION.
This video has so many proofs that Apollo was real, you think Jarrah nows it was real, but he likes the little money & attention he receives from this little venture?
Nothing like attaching yourself to the greatest achievement of the 20th century for a little wanna be woo woo Y tube fame
@straydog02 Yeah..Clueless...Is that why all I get is insults when I ask the question:
Name one thing that would have made Moon landings prohibitive or impossible ?
How come no hoaxhead has ever given me an answer to this simple question.
Maybe you can stray.... After all..I should thank you for bringing me into this little fray a few months ago when you chimed in on my remark about Sibrel making a little cash with his Moon hoax venture. Remember? Funny..
@Tweekerhead ... One thing that made manned missions impossible in 1969 thru 1973 the FACT that NASA did not have the proper radiation protection to keep humans alive beyond low earth orbit... The tin foil and thin aluminum skin of the Apollo craft offered no protection against solar wind or cosmic ray radiation that constantly bombards the Moon.. The flimsy Apollo sutis offered no such protection either.
@straydog02 Aware that the VA Belts are made of charged particles of ionizing radiation,not like neutron rad.from Chernobyl so Ap.suits wouldn't have helped like ur' friend Rick thinks.
The α particles,of the inner belt are the most intense at 100MeV. So a year exposure would yield 2,500rem+ a year. Solar Wind has less energy at 10-100 keV, also made of α & ß particles.
Cosmic rays of high GeV value happen about once every 50+ yrs. per m².
@Tweekerhead There are Cosmic rays events that have the kinetic energy of a mosquito,they're some with the energy of a tennis ball. Then there's the proton Z particles that have the kinetic energy of a Nolan Ryan fast ball...That's a very rare particle.
To save you the embarrassment,don't bother posting the miss-quote about secondary gamma radiation on the Moon,I have the real quote to quash it.
Research alpha & beta particles you'll find they can be blocked by paper & aluminum respectively.
I agree with Jarrah but I have a question that I would like to know. How do you get sand from the beach to appear gray on camera, please answer I need to know for a movie.
@yesiamawizardjonny ... Sorry , but I don't have time to discuss the Apollo hoax evidence anymore ... Look up Jarrah's chanel and ask him that question.
They didn't fool every scientist .. Most of them just have the good sense not to rock the boat by daring to question the official Apollo record.. especially since certain people have been killed for that.
@straydog02 I said in my comment that was removed,They could have revealed their thoughts on the subject in documents that could have been released after their deaths,But this has never happened.
Actually, before Dr. James Van Allen died, he gave an interview to Apollo conspiracy researcher James Collier in which he stated very clearly that he never refuted his original scientific findings and claims concerning the radiation belts.. His original findings were that the Van Allen radiation belts were deadly to humans without the proper radiation shielding of either several meters of water or several feet of lead .. The Apollo craft had neither.
I can't find it either .. The interview, like his documentary, was called 'Was it Only a Paper Moon?'.. I had the article link saved in my last computer but lost everything when it crashed, never to recover... I found some info on Jim Colier, including a YouTube video, but not that interview.. It's shame, cuz Dr. Van Allen's replies to Collier were real eye openers.. Especially if you believe in the hoax.
@straydog02 I do think that they did go to the moon,Whether the whole story as we know it is true,I dont know,It was an historical moment,Mans greatest achievement,If it was faked i cant see that they would think they could get away with it forever,Im sure the US government could see further than a cold war victory.
@arobekie .. I've always thought there might be a possibility of some astronauts going to the Moon but using a very different technology than what was shown to the public.. I never bought the Apollo story of 24 humans going thru the VA belts and onto the Moon in those flimsy aluminum cans, with the computing capacity of a laptop.. I think the Operation Paperclip Nazi scientists also brought a secret advanced tech with them, and that what the world saw was really The Apollo Simulation Program.
I see that you removed my comments,The last time i checked they had about fifty thumbs up,Your no better than the people who do cover up the truth,And i dont mean NASA.
I haven't posted here in over two weeks .. I don't remember removing any of your comments, but if I did, it would only be because they contained nothing but flame baiting ridicule which is not pertinent to the discussion.
You are free to post any pro Apollo/anti hoax information you like here, just as long as it isn't the typical apollogist, troll trash.
bravo! pretty and simple experiment , it seems more if a hard surface was covered with becha sand or a compost with other components for make the fake.or different shots with different soils.
YOU put JW on a pedestal, not me. Since he is YOUR hero (which defines your character in a rather pathetic way) give me your BEST example of what he has "PROVEN".
Jarrah's proven every aspect of the hoax, but if I had to pick one I consider the most damaging against NASA , it would be the fact that nobody outside of NASA's Deep Space Tracking Network ever tracked any Apollo craft to the Moon .. Not the Soviets, not the hams and not even Jodrell Bank, who has tons of documented data showing their tracking of the Soviet Luna missions, but no data or documentation proving they tracked Apollo.. Only NASA facilities make that claim.
JW hasm't "proven" one thiing. He has been thouroughly debunked by people with more talent than I (philwebb59 is one of the best). But do you not realize the illogic in arguing that we didn't go because you believe no one other than NASA tracked them? Regardless that's just not true anyay. Here is a totally non-NASA related link: "astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html"
How stupid are you? .. First of all, Apollogist Phil Webb is a proven LIAR.. Watch Jarrah's latest video to see the proof of how Webb distorted Jarrah's evidence, took his words out of context, then blatantly LIED about Jarrah's hoax evidence.
Second of all, Bill Keel never tracked any craft beyond low earth orbit with his back yard Mickey Mouse telescope, and the one Australian radio dish that was capable of tracking Apollo to the Moon was being run by NASA.
"Bill Keel had a home made, back yard telescope that wasn't capable of seeing beyond low earth orbit"
Mr. Keel published two books - The Road to Galaxy Formation (published in August 2002 by Springer-Praxis, released in a revised second edition in 2008. At a more popular level, The Sky at Einstein's Feet (right), published in October 2005, traces the many ways in which relativity has informed the last century of astronomical discovery.
"Just because Keel worte (sic) a couple f books, doesn't mean he tracked any Apollo craft to the Moon... because he didn't."
WRONG, as always. Mr. Keel knows exponentially more than you coulld ever hope to about astronomy and tracking the Apollo spacecraft. If he says he did it, I find him more than qualified to trump your opinion. The only lies involved here are the ones you are telling yourself. I quote reputable sources and scientific fact. What do you do? Mud-sling.
Grahn never tracked any Apollo craft to the Moon either.. He only claimed to pick up a few signals near the Moon and we all know that radio signals and voice transmissions can be bounced off of the Moon from Earth.. So Grahn, with his rinky dink equipment in the back of his car, didn't have a clue.. Jarrah has also debunked Sven's silly claims in his recent video.
Have you even watched any of Jarrahs's vidoes? .. If so, you wouldn't be making such stupid claims.
Way to many, unfortunately. It was his videos that made me get a U-Tube account. After at first thinking, "Hmmm...he may have something here, I quickly realized how deceptive he actually is. Too bad you are too blind to recognize this. As far as bouncing signals off the Moon, you wouldn't get the doppler effect, among other things, unless you were tracking a moving object. Explain THAT.
The Soviets sent an unmanned Zond mission to the Moon with pre-recorded Cosmonaut conversations on board the craft ..Conversations that at first, NASA believed to be real ... It's no big deal.
Voice transmissions can be sent from the Earth to the Moon, with no way of telling if the transmissions are really coming from the Moon, or just being bounced off the Moon.
"Voice transmissions can be sent from the Earth to the Moon, with no way of telling if the transmissions are really coming from the Moon, or just being bounced off the Moon."
Honestly. I don't know about that...YET. But I mentioned the Doppler effect on the way to/from the Moon. Do YOU have a clue as to what THAT is all about? By your answer, I would guess...NO!
So simple. Sand of many granule sizes were used wherever they needed them. Some was powder and some was grains of larger proportions. Fast and slow motions were co-ordinated according to the sand effects needed. You forgot to show the famous untouched sand around the rover, without footprints or tire tracks.
@arobekie i wonder how sibrel got that cannister??
sounds like someone trying to blow the cover to me...
neil armstrongs behaviour is beyond dodgy and the FACT that they were ALL high ranking freemasons sworn to secrecy with blood oaths isn't too reassuring either...anyone participating in a deception op at the highest levels is WELL PART OF THE PROGRAM...all they are trying to achieve is
I saw this video about the VLT in Chile. It's the VERY LARGE TELESCOPE, and the astronomer was excited about finally showing the apollo debris left behind, but something strange happened and you can't find any photos of the moon. He said you could see a clearly at 10meters using it. We do have the technology to zero in on Earth objects from what, 250 miles with amazing detail. NASA knows they didn't go and they are not allowed to talk about Apollo other than "we went to the moon". Nasa lied.
Soooo, Nasa had both an indoor and outdoor set when both consisted of sand? I think this, as Jarrah would say, is a "Stawman argument".
So, what did they do? Get a crap load of sand and dye it the color of regolith? Did they happen to have an outdoor and indoor set in order film? The more complicated you make this, it seems more and more probable that it would be easier to just go to the moon.
@Europasingstome Funny you mention regolith. Nasa is making regolith grinding rocks from Stillwater mine with the geological survey team. Nasa has a website proving that they are doing this. They say they have a recipe to make regolith to practice going the moon. If they went 6 times( successfully), they wouldn't need to do this. And Nasa recently test monkeys with radiation to see how they'd do, and I guess not well, b/c Nasa said they aren't going till more tests can be done. This is fact.
@nrobnas43 Three things, in case you havem't already figured them out for yourself":
1) The 10 meter resoluyion of the VLT is still not small enough to detect even the largest item ;eft on the moon. The base of the LEM itself would only be about 1/2 a pixel.
2) The regolith needs to be replaced due ro the erosion of previous use that causes real dust to be made. (If they even bothered to keep the old stuff)
3) Monkeys? Low level exposure/long term space travel research.
The pixel size excuse is getting pretty tired now .. NASA has the ability to photograph objects the size of cars from low earth orbit, yet can't figure out how to do the same from lunar orbit? ... Riight.
Their LRO photos are photoshopped garbage.
As for the rest of the nonsense you posted, all I can say is that Ralph Rene got it right when he said .. "You don't send a man where you never sent the monkey."
@straydog02 You so shilly! Pixel size is what it is, so I imagine you should be getting tired of the facts by now. NASA is not in the business of satifsying your unfounded delusions. The LRO was engineered for NASA's own scientific purposes. The LRO pix photoshopped? Now, you're just grasping at imaginary straws. And the fact that you quote Ralph Rene does say it all.
Pixel size is not what it is, it's what NASA's and your excuse is for the LRO pics not being able to image the Apollo trash, allegedly left on the Moon.
I would think even a brainwashed monkey like you would wonder why some of the alleged landing sites show "footpaths", while other don't... Funny how none of the LRO pics show any Rovers or Rover tracks either .. but then NASA forgot to put the Rover tracks in most of their original faked Apollo photos also.
@straydog02 What great circular logic you use. The photos are photoshopped, but they were too stupid to include the rovers and their tracks? You obviously wouldn't believe the photos that do show them (and YES they are there -just another EXCELLENT job of research on your part). If you're going to trash-talk NASA, please try and do some real homework. Do you understand that monkeys and many other biological samples were sent into space well before we went to the moon? Peace.
@straydog02 Photoshopped proven? Naw. Again, you can find the stuff you say was left out if you look for it. The monkeys and many other biological samples were sent into space to see the effects SPACE had on them (i.e., virtual weightlessness, any unforseen factors, etc.). They didn't have to be sent into the VABs as the effects of high doses of radiation were fairly well understood. They wanted to see if there was anything ELSE to worrry about. It's ALL good!
Yes, it has been proven that the LRO photos are processed thru Adobe Photoshop .. I will send you the link to that proof as soon as I have more time.. It's also been proven that NASA has the technology to resolve an image down to the size of a beachball on Mars, yet refuses to image the Apollo junk that's supossedly strewn about on the lunar surface.. Which is proof that they are hiding the truth about Apollo, whether you can accept that fact or not.
As for your belief that the VA belts are not dangerous to humans, all we have is NASA's word for that, during Project Apollo.. and as we all know, all their word means is NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER.
Recently, NASA scientists have admitted that no manned missions will fly to the Moon, or to Mars, until the proper radiation shielding is INVENTED... Yet they allegedly landed 24 humans on the Moon 40 years ago ???
@straydog02 Don't get me wrong my friend, radiation is potentially lethal, and absolutly so in the VABs - IF you stay there long enough. I have some links on my home channel that provide plenty of info on how they mitigated the risk. The future plans for the moon and mars involve long term excursions (the moon mission is to build a sustainable base there), so NASA wants to ensure the base they build will be adequate for long term exposure, as well as being able to deal with solar flares.
All you have is NASA's word for it that they knew how to mitigate the radiation risks.. But since they never sent any monkeys into or beyond the belts before allegedly sending 24 humans through them, then I don't believe we have been told the truth about the real dangers of the radiation on the way to, and on the Moon.
The "long term" efftects of radiation is just another predictable excuse as to why no manned flights are able to travel beyond low earth orbit today.
@straydog02 Just NASA's word? Absolutely WRONG! I am a Physical Science Tech where I deal with radiological controls. Measuring and documenting radiation levels during nuclear operations, repair and maintenance (among a lot of ather radiological duties). I have been doing this for 29+ years. I KNOW their data is reasonable. I have some links on my channel that support NASA very well. Feel free to check them out, but be warned, they use in-depth math and physics...a.k.a. REAL science.
You're a Physical Science Tech? .. Would you like to prove that, or should I just take your word for it?... LOL
You have links on your chanel that support NASA , plus you have a list of "friends" who are some of the most insulting Apollogist trolls on YouTube, plus you recently joined YouTube, which means you're most likely one of those Apollogist's sockpuppets.
If you can't prove your claims of your alleged qualifications, then why bother to make them? .. It doesn't matter what any of us does for a living, as that has no bearing on the Apollo Hoax anyway.
Your "friends" are definately what they are, which would be flame baiting Apollogist sockpuppet trolls .. So I'm glad to hear you're not like them .. I just hope their disagreeable ways don't rub off on you.
@straydog02 My qualifications exist,because, I do, to the best of my ability, tell the truth. I realize your occupation (if you have one) probably doesn't qualify you for anything on this forum, but my work with radiological controls does provide me with a fair amount of understanding regarding them and their relationship to the Apollo program. I like the scientific points made by most of my "friends". Their points are normally well illustrated.
You don't know what my occupation is, so cut the crap.. Just because you think you know something about "radiological controls", doesn't make you an expert on Apollo.
The "scientific" points your 'friends" make are nothing but more Apollogitst BS.. The crap they spew on YouTube is just meaningless ridicule of people like Jarrah White, who knows how to expose them for the disingenuous assholes they really are.
One more thing, as far as friends go, I used to think that J. White was either ignorant or mis-informed himself. However, he has proven to be manipulative, childish, and predatory. He like to call names and discredit reputable people. I can also prove conclusively where he calls Phil Plait a liar when Mr. Plait was undeniably telling the truth.
You are either telling your own lies, or repeating the lies of others. Your own parroting of his misinformation and non-critical thinking cannot lead you to the truth. Go on and worship Jarrah White. That is your prerogative. I will continue to look up to educated, qualified scientists for my inspiration. I understand I am probably wasting your time somewhat, as you appear to be close-minded. But I will continue to rebut the more non-sensical comments.
This discussion has nothing to do with "worshiping "Jarrah White.. but it is pretty funny how you clowns are so obsessed with him ..It's understandable though, since he's the researcher the Apllogists fear the most.
Not only has Jarrah provided the evidence necessary to show that Apollo was a complete fraud, but he's also exposed your "friends" for the obnoxious liars they are.
I'm not the one swallowing or parroting disinformation .. That's obviously your job.
I cannot speak for the "others", as you call them, but it was actually a couple of his videos that got me to get a U-tube account. His videos are very slick and well produced - he DOES have a talent for that. As I first watrched them I DID think, "Hmmm, this guy seems to have a point here. However, especially after I watched some for a second time, I noticed things like, "Hey, THAT guy is no expert on that subject, THAT was taken out of context, that's NOT what he said, etc.
Your fear and misguided ridicule of Jarrah White is quite understandable, considering the fact that he's proven many times over ( with his slick and well produced videos) that Apollo was a monumental FRAUD.
You're just another clueless, brainwashed , Apollo Fanny Boy, parroting the same propaganda they all do.
@straydog02 To continue, JW does NOT tell the truth. I found these things out with my own research. My "friends" ALL contacted me after I made a few posts of my own. I checked out their sites and watched their videos before I accepted. Some took me a couple of days to decide. My basis, is that their videos overwhelmingly use good science and critical thinking to present their points. They are not all perfect, but I have yet to see them deliberately do the deceptive things JW does.
@Monkeyboysdontknow "I can also prove conclusively where he calls Phil Plait a liar when Mr. Plait was undeniably telling the truth."
I can prove coclusively, that Plait is a whining wimp, afraid to give Jarrah 15 minutes of time to show him the major solar flares during Apollo, for his comment. Since Plait has already lied about them, he won't comment. He also won't comment on Operation Dirty Trick, as well as his defamation of Bill Kaysing. Plait whines more than most infants!
Is that why YOU won't answer my question? Also, the "likes of me" includes every prominent scientist in the WORLD! Yeah, they most definately refuse to use their reason, intelligence, etc. That's JUST whar makes them so successful. Typical rant by a MHB. Quit your propaganda speech and tell me what your BEST piece of evidence is.
A for the subject of the dangers of space radiation, it was the reaspn the Soviets never bothered to send any manned missions to the Moon .. They knew it couldn't be done without risking the lives of their Cosmonauts.
Unlike NASA, who apprarently didn't give a damn how many Apollo astronauts died on world wide, "live" TV .
@straydog02 You really need to find better sources of information. If they didn't plan on going to the Moon, the Russians would never have spent the hundreds of millions (possibly billions) trying to develop the N1 rocket, which they worked on until 1976. Look it up for yourself and you will see how ill-informed your sources are.
Of course the Soviets planned on going to the Moon .. But planning on something and actually being able to accomplish it, are two completely different things.
One of the top Soviet scientists told Sir Bernard Lovel of Jodrell Bank, that the Soviets couldn't send cosmonauts to the Moon until they could be assured of their safety against the deadly radiation.
Obviously you only understand NASA disinformation, and then parrot it, like your clueless "friends".
@straydog02 Planning and "building", spending the hundreds of millions and possibly billions of dollars to build what they did, IS one thing. Accomplishing it wasn't done for a variety of factors, including poor propulsion choices. Both the US and Russia wouldn't send someone to the moon unless they thought the risk was acceptable. If the Soviets did not have a plan similar to ours to mitigate that risk, the cash-strapped nation would never have spent the money they did.
The Soviets knew the risk of sending humans to the moon was unacceptable, especially after spending all of their time and money on craft they hoped would able to do it. .. The bottom line was, they didn't send any manned missions ( though they were technically more advanced than NASA ) because they knew it couldn't be done ... You see, unlike the Americans, they did send a monkey into the belts, but it didn't survive the radiation...So they sent an unmanned Rover instead.
@straydog02 Did the soviet scientist ask the question before or after they built their lunar lander,It certainly would be a waste of a lot of roubles.
Before it was built, I believe. The Soviets, like the Americans, were in the space race to win, but after developing their launch rockets etc. they sent turtles and mealworms to orbit the Moon during Zond.. Allegedly they all came back alive, since those type of criiters can withstand huge levels of radiation. Levels that would kill humans. Apparently the monkey the Soviets sent into the Van Allen belts wasn't so lucky, so they pulled the plug on their manned flights to the Moon.
First of all, WHAT monkey? The turtles amd mealworms, etc. were destroyed on re-entry whan the capsule lost pressure due to a bad gasket. The Russians spent hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars trying to develop their N1 rocket (specifically for a manned Moon mission) up until 1976. The rocket was an ultimate failure due to a poor choice for propulsion fuel.
You don't know about the monkey coming back fried from the VA belt radiation?
You don't know about the monkey?.. You're telling a different story than the Soviets did about those turtles and mealworms then .. They claimed thet all got home safe and sound .. but if that was just a disinformation lie, and you know more about their Zond mission than they do, then the deaths of the turtles and worms would be just one more reason not to send their cosmonauts to the Moon.
"The rocket was an ultimate failure due to a poor choice for propulsion fuel."
Yet that same rocket successfully launched an unmanned Rover during Project Apollo.. An unmanned Rover that was at least 30 years more advanced than any conventional NASA technology at the time.
A Rover that really looked like a space vehicle, instead of a"'moon" buggy, golf cart with lawn chairs, that looked more like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
Okay, I must have been thinking about something else with the turtles, because you are right that they WERE successfully recovered. However, I still fail to find any credible reference to a Russian space monkey getting "fried". They didn't even send their first one(s) until 1983. Where did you get YOUR monkey info?The Rover rocket was NOT the N1.
If that's so true, than why is this information so readily available on the internet? Sure, Nasa has tried to counter all the bullshit coming from conspiracy theorists, but if this were a bigger deal than you guys make it out to be, why aren't they lining up these moon landing deniers and shooting them down?
Or why isn't the government shutting down anything on youtube? or the internet in general?
it's not worth the effort to rebut this... this one has been well dismantled.
Trust me, I would LOVE to believe this stuff. REALLY.
It does nothing to further your argument when you stand behind stuff that is this weak. Isn't that the idea: that I'm supposed to be skeptical? Skepticism is good.
Frankly, when you behave the way you do, you have as much credibility as someone who interprets the bible literally. some of this stuff is compelling; not this.if I'm an 'Apollogist', you're a hoaxtard.
Well, I see it didn't take you long to start the flame baiting ridicule.. You even used the dreaded "H" word! .. LOL
anotherdamntroll is even a better name for you.
So if this evidence has "already been dismanteled", then I assume the only reason you're here is to spew ridicule.
I don't have the time to waste arguing with you, but I didn't make this video.. I only hosted it for Jarrah White.. So if you have any complaints, send them his way.
but you started the name calling... I was trying to point out how ridiculous it is to call me an 'Apollogist'...as ridiculous as it is to call you a 'Hoaxtard'...both admittedly pretty funny terms.
even you have to admit that what is presented here is not the strongest argument and certainly NOT above scrutiny. I deem it to be weak evidence and poor science.
If you do not agree and feel as strongly as you do, you have the opportunity to proceed without name calling.
I was just having some fun with your user name .. You gotta admit that anothedamntroll was pretty funny.
I'm tired of all the mud slinging, flame baiting ridicule and arguing with people who have already decided, for whatever reason, that the official Apollo record is true.
Actually, I have no interest in persuading anyone to agree with me about Apollo or any other subject .. Everyone is free to believe whatever they choose.
The only evidence that would sway my opinion is a high resolution picture of each landing site taken by an independent source,I know that the LRO belongs to NASA but so far the swayometer seems to be in favour of a moon landing,I dare say that in the future there will be high res pictures taken by an independent source and only then will the truth be known.
Independent high resolution photos of the "landing" sites would be great .. That should prove once and for al if the Apollo debris is really on the Moon.
But even though NASA will never produce any hig res photos, we now have some lunar orbital and telescopic photos of the alleged Apollo 15 "landing" site that prove the surface photos don't match the Mt Hadley mountain terrain seen in the orbital photos.
yes but if u put a footprint on the sand unless is weat it dosent show the print in the moon surfuce the soil was really thin and footprints were very clear because the vacuum keeps particles together...just proven ur wrong
Both artificial lunar regolith and damp sand will produce the same type of bootprints that are seen in the Apollo photos... So you haven't proven anything wrong, except your own supposition.
Jeff, why the landing pads are clean and shiny (despite the disturbance of the landing caused by engine power of the LM ) and yet Aldrin has a lot of dust on his boots in a Wikipedia photo.
Question is:
Did Aldrin had a brush, to re polish the ridiculous legs of this surrealistic looking tin bucket ,that supposedly had the power to travel at speeds which are frightening even for today's technological standards?
To me it looks like a washing machine combined with a dryer.Not a spacecraft.
@potrodsas - "why the landing pads are clean and chiny"
Because due to the lack of atmosphere on the moon no particles got suspended in air causing them to 'billow' and float down to rest on the pads.
As you can see at 1:55, each particle dislodged by the descent engine follows a path based on it's initial speed and trajectory. Because of the high speed, almost all of the particles were carried far beyond the pads.
By the way, shiny pads are a proof of it being in a low gravity vacuum.
Yet the Surveyor pads were covered with a lot of dust.. Which means your explaination of why the LM pads had no dust on them is just more Apollogist BS.
The many inconsistancies and anomalies in the official Apollo photographic record proves it was all staged, during the Apollo Simulation Program .. So the only real question is why did NASA have to fake the Apollo photography?
The real question is - with all of the convoluted scenarios introduced by the hoaxtards to try and explain the possible staging of every aspect of the physical, photographic and geological record of the missions - who in their right minds couldn't believe that it was really easier just to go to the damn thing?
Jeff .. Please refrain from posting flame baiting comments on my chanel.. Thanks.
The use of front screen projection to stage the Apollo photography was much easier than sending 27 humans to the Moon, using that ridiculous looking, antiquated 1969 conventional technology, without any proper radiation shielding.
Sorry, I really didn't understand how the "lunar regolith" theory was busted. It sounded like you were talking about arguments for the conspiracy claim, then you just cut straight to that argument.
Pro-NASA types point to videos of astronauts kicking up dust, which promptly falls back to the ground.
They say that this dust movement can't be done on earth because it would stir up clouds. However, sand behaves exactly like moondust when it's kick. It goes up and comes back down without making any clouds.
Of course then they beg the question about bootprints. Saying that dry sand doesn't leave prints. This is a strawman because the prints are only seen in the still photos, not the videos.
So now the fairy tale gets even more convoluted - we need to have two completely separate studios - one filled with sand for the video shots and a completly identical, yet separate one with very fine particles to leave those distinct footprints.
And then you have the nerve to talk about strawman arguements -
I have a question: What about their dirty pants? Were they "dusted" beforehand?
What the prevailing theory here? (or, has nobody thought about it yet?)
TheDeJureTour 2 weeks ago
@TheDeJureTour .. If they were romping about in damp sand or some other artificial lunar soil, their pants would have been very dirty.
I believe this subject has been discussed before .. The apollogists claim that only real lunar soil would have stuck to their pants.
straydog02 2 weeks ago
@straydog02 You'll have to forgive me, as I am somewhat new to this.
I guess then they would say that if sand is your argument, it wouldn't stick to their pants like that - only a dust would. Right?
TheDeJureTour 2 weeks ago
@TheDeJureTour ... I think any type of damp soil would stick to clothing .
But maybe you should discuss this with Jarrah White, since he's the one who made this video .. I only hosted it for him.
straydog02 2 weeks ago
@johnmo752 .. The stars should be seen when the gain is turned up on the fake lunar sky in the fake Apollo photos.. They're not there though .. What is there, is the evidence of the scotchlite screens that are part of the front screen projection special effects, used to stage the Apollo photography.
Get a clue, you lying sack of dirt.
straydog02 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APOLLO DISNEY HOAX MISSIONS
Nasa is talking about "FOOTPRINTS" when they can not even show us the
LEM arifiacts on the moon
Nasa is a crock of shit
US NWO Criminal Governmet Bullshit
DeadJesus100 5 months ago
part one from shill why there are no tracks involving LR ...
Okay, you wanted an answer, although I don't know why I should bother, as any explanation will be ignored. There are many reasons there may not be tracks at all. Could be that the rover was built on the spot photographed or moved to the spot. It would explain the extraordinary amount of footprints around it. The moon dust could cover the tracks.
(cont'd)
pt1gard 5 months ago
(part 2) .lmfao, Im using your ridic answer in my book, would you be so kind to give me you full name and you will be quoted ... Im still drying my tears, "built it there?" it came off the LM already assembled, but then again you are an expert and wont believe me, and also they happened to "misplace" the blueprints for the LR, but again Im sure you knew that, and oh yeah they lost all the original tapes/films to all missions but you knew that too, right ... nasa genius that loses everything :)
pt1gard 5 months ago
What a waste. The video proves that a footprint made on Earth does not look like one made on the Moon. However, the original Apollo photo, since it was taken on the Moon, already proved that point.
iop39531 5 months ago
@iop39531 .. What proof do you have that any of the Apollo photography was taken on the Moon, besides NASA's word for it?
Google "How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Moon Landings" to see exactly how front screen projection was used to stage the Apollo photography.
straydog02 5 months ago
@straydog02 An accusation by someone is not proof of anything. The fact that real events can be simulated does not prove that real events were simulated. You have no facts to support your side of the argument.
NASA's word is much more reliable than the habitual liars within the Fortean press and "alternative media". The moon hoax proponents, notably Kaysing and Rene, make (or made) their income by spreading misinformation and slander.
iop39531 5 months ago
@iop39531 .. Unfortunately for you ( and everyone else ) Kaysing and Rene were not the liars.. Nor were they the ones spreading the misinformation... That appears to be your job.
Like Bill Kaysing once said "The Apollo Hoax evidence is not just one thing , it's cumulative .. There's more evidence to prove Apollo did not happen as advertised, than there is it did.
You're entitled to believe whatever you choose, but if you think the Apollo fraud hasn't been proven, you're sadly mistaken.
straydog02 5 months ago
@straydog02 So, you are reduced to quoting a known liar. As I stated you have no proof - absolutely none, thay the Apollo missions were faked. There is a simple reason why you have no proof: they were real historical events that generated reams of documentation and left physical evidence behind.
Kaysing never presented _any_ evidence. He only presented his unqualified, and incorrect, opinions. These were all debunked over 30 years ago.
Rene was just wacko. Check his other writings.
iop39531 5 months ago
@iop39531 .. Kaysing had no reason to lie .. Neither did Rene.. Which means the liars are NASA, the Apollo astroNOTS and gullible, clueless little tools like you..
The hoax has been proven on every level possible.
Deal with it.
straydog02 5 months ago
@straydog02 Footprints on the moon have been photographed by the LRO. LR track marks too.
The Apollo missions are real historical events.
Deal with it.
johnmo752 5 months ago
@johnmo752 .. The LRO photos are Adobe photoshoped garbage.
Deal with it.
straydog02 5 months ago
@straydog02
" Kaysing had no reason to lie .. Neither did Rene'".
LOL! You are very gullible. Primary reasons: money and (to some extent) fame. Secondary reasons: to evangelize a political and/or social position.
Without the Moon Hoax Lie, Kaysing was just an improvished, failed author of books no one bothered to read. With it, he managed to the rent on his trailer park spot (until he got evicted) and got to appear on TV.
Both men were losers.
johnmo752 5 months ago
@johnmo752 "Primary reasons: money and (to some extent) fame. Secondary reasons: to evangelize a political and/or social position."
Is that you Buzz? How's your book tour going? How's promoting Mars going?
TheDeJureTour 2 weeks ago
@straydog02 You're too stupid to talk. Please shut up. For the sake of world wide human intelligence, just don't write anymore comments.
unparallelshadows 1 month ago
@unparallelshadows ... Insults not only prove what a jerk you are but also prove you have no proper arguments to defend your lost cause.
straydog02 3 weeks ago
Tell you what, straydog02, I challange you to talk about ONE, and ONLY one bit of 'evidence' at a time, stay on topic, and be adult about it. Let's just see how far THAT will get you.
Monkeyboysdontknow 5 months ago
Staydog - so you are a name-caller as well as a fool.
edmfw 7 months ago
@edmfw .. Like most Apollogist hypocrites, you can dish it out but you can't take it... No surprise there.
straydog02 7 months ago
@straydog02 There is no such thing as an "Apollogist". The reality of the moon landings is nothing to apologize about.
edmfw 7 months ago
@edmfw .. NASA, the Apollo astronauts and their obsessed defenders are proven liars, so there's plenty to apologize about.. The only reality of Project Apollo is that was a 30 billion dollar US government propaganda scam.
straydog02 7 months ago
@straydog02 I am sorry that reality does not agree with your fantasy world. I am sorry that human race includes people foolish enough to take Jarrah White seriously.
Frankly, the gullibility of people like you scares me. it is easy to how Bin Laden or Hitler were able to mislead so many people.
edmfw 7 months ago
@edmfw .. The official Apollo record is the fantasy, not the hoax evidence ... When it comes to gullibility, NASA and the US government count on clueless people just like you to keep their propaganda myths alive.
As for the Boogeyman bin Laden, he's just another American propaganda myth who was kept alive until the polital powers that be decided he needed to be dead.. As for Hitler, it was his evil Nazi scientists who ran NASA during Project Apollo.
You really are one clueless troll.
straydog02 7 months ago
@straydog02 "hoax evidence" is BS. There is _no_ hoax evidence, only nonsense that you confuse with reality.
edmfw 6 months ago
@edmfw .. The Apollo photos are proven fakes... Why fake the photos if they really went to the Moon?
straydog02 6 months ago
@straydog02 Not true. You are either a fool or a liar. I assume a fool because you are gullible enough to believe the nonsense generated by a lunatic fringe.
edmfw 6 months ago
@edmfw .. And I assume you're a liar since you're insulting me for no reason, along with defending the Apollo scam.
Piss off troll.
straydog02 6 months ago
@straydog02
'And I assume you're a liar since you're insulting me for no reason, '
Oh, I see PLENTY of reason. You LIE when you say, 'Apollo photos are proven fakes', since accredited photographic experts find them to be quite real.
You LIE when you say, 'The official Apollo record is the fantasy', because ALL the evidence indicates the missions happened as planned.
You LIE when you say footage was or is surpressed. That is simply not true. I can find ALL that on NASA's own site.
Monkeyboysdontknow 5 months ago 2
@Monkeyboysdontknow ..
Question: How many ignorant Apollogist parrots does it take to defend the bogus Project Apollo ?
Answer : Just one, along with their many, many many psychopathic sockpuppets.
Piss off troll.
straydog02 5 months ago
You're confusing non-ionizing radiation with ionizing radiation.
I'm not going to say something like read about radiation, they have books about radiation with really big print and not as many words as they have pictures.
No..I wanna' thank you for sucking me into this Moon hoax fray, it's great! Like hunting rabbits.
Arguing with someone who really knows and loves what they're talking about makes you frustrated doesn't it.
Isn't it amazing the VA Belts are more intense than the solar wind.
Thx
Tweekerhead 11 months ago
@Tweekerhead ... You're welcome, though I don't remember sucking you into making an utter fool of yourself here 24/7 ... but it is a real treat to see someone as ignorant as you are, pretend to know about subjects like deep space radiation.. and then project the level of your reading skills by describing books with big print and pictures... LOL
Watching un4given1 wipe the floor with you on this subject was a hoot!
Of all the Apollogist clowns, you are definately the dumbest.
straydog02 11 months ago
@straydog02 Tweekboy hasn't the first clue about the true environment of space, or else he would have shut up long ago. Constant visits to baut to get his disinformation is his idea of research. Notice trolls like our geekboy forget to mention the many types of GCR's ON TOP of the Solar radiation! Gamma Ray Bursts being one of the events they like to ignore completely. Especially because of the inability to properly shield oneself from again, DEADLY RADIATION.
un4g1v3n1 11 months ago
This video has so many proofs that Apollo was real, you think Jarrah nows it was real, but he likes the little money & attention he receives from this little venture?
Nothing like attaching yourself to the greatest achievement of the 20th century for a little wanna be woo woo Y tube fame
Tweekerhead 11 months ago
@Tweekerhead ... Jarrah knows Apollo was faked... You don't because you're one of most clueless Apollogists on the planet.
straydog02 11 months ago
@straydog02 Yeah..Clueless...Is that why all I get is insults when I ask the question:
Name one thing that would have made Moon landings prohibitive or impossible ?
How come no hoaxhead has ever given me an answer to this simple question.
Maybe you can stray.... After all..I should thank you for bringing me into this little fray a few months ago when you chimed in on my remark about Sibrel making a little cash with his Moon hoax venture. Remember? Funny..
Can you answer my question?
Tweekerhead 11 months ago
@Tweekerhead ... One thing that made manned missions impossible in 1969 thru 1973 the FACT that NASA did not have the proper radiation protection to keep humans alive beyond low earth orbit... The tin foil and thin aluminum skin of the Apollo craft offered no protection against solar wind or cosmic ray radiation that constantly bombards the Moon.. The flimsy Apollo sutis offered no such protection either.
straydog02 11 months ago
@straydog02 Aware that the VA Belts are made of charged particles of ionizing radiation,not like neutron rad.from Chernobyl so Ap.suits wouldn't have helped like ur' friend Rick thinks.
The α particles,of the inner belt are the most intense at 100MeV. So a year exposure would yield 2,500rem+ a year. Solar Wind has less energy at 10-100 keV, also made of α & ß particles.
Cosmic rays of high GeV value happen about once every 50+ yrs. per m².
You can block α w/paper & ß w/ aluminum, fact.
Next?
Tweekerhead 11 months ago
@Tweekerhead There are Cosmic rays events that have the kinetic energy of a mosquito,they're some with the energy of a tennis ball. Then there's the proton Z particles that have the kinetic energy of a Nolan Ryan fast ball...That's a very rare particle.
To save you the embarrassment,don't bother posting the miss-quote about secondary gamma radiation on the Moon,I have the real quote to quash it.
Research alpha & beta particles you'll find they can be blocked by paper & aluminum respectively.
Tweekerhead 11 months ago
@Tweekerhead ... btw, copying and pasting NASA "scientific" disinformation won't help your lost cause much either .. but nice try.
straydog02 11 months ago
I agree with Jarrah but I have a question that I would like to know. How do you get sand from the beach to appear gray on camera, please answer I need to know for a movie.
yesiamawizardjonny 1 year ago
@yesiamawizardjonny ... Sorry , but I don't have time to discuss the Apollo hoax evidence anymore ... Look up Jarrah's chanel and ask him that question.
straydog02 1 year ago
music serious makes this video better :D
JasonH42000 1 year ago
I wonder how NASA managed to fool every scientist,Past and present.
arobekie 1 year ago
@arobekie
They didn't fool every scientist .. Most of them just have the good sense not to rock the boat by daring to question the official Apollo record.. especially since certain people have been killed for that.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 I said in my comment that was removed,They could have revealed their thoughts on the subject in documents that could have been released after their deaths,But this has never happened.
arobekie 1 year ago
@arobekie
Actually, before Dr. James Van Allen died, he gave an interview to Apollo conspiracy researcher James Collier in which he stated very clearly that he never refuted his original scientific findings and claims concerning the radiation belts.. His original findings were that the Van Allen radiation belts were deadly to humans without the proper radiation shielding of either several meters of water or several feet of lead .. The Apollo craft had neither.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 I have searched for that interview and i cant find anything to back up your claim.
arobekie 1 year ago
@arobekie
I can't find it either .. The interview, like his documentary, was called 'Was it Only a Paper Moon?'.. I had the article link saved in my last computer but lost everything when it crashed, never to recover... I found some info on Jim Colier, including a YouTube video, but not that interview.. It's shame, cuz Dr. Van Allen's replies to Collier were real eye openers.. Especially if you believe in the hoax.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 I do think that they did go to the moon,Whether the whole story as we know it is true,I dont know,It was an historical moment,Mans greatest achievement,If it was faked i cant see that they would think they could get away with it forever,Im sure the US government could see further than a cold war victory.
arobekie 1 year ago
@arobekie .. I've always thought there might be a possibility of some astronauts going to the Moon but using a very different technology than what was shown to the public.. I never bought the Apollo story of 24 humans going thru the VA belts and onto the Moon in those flimsy aluminum cans, with the computing capacity of a laptop.. I think the Operation Paperclip Nazi scientists also brought a secret advanced tech with them, and that what the world saw was really The Apollo Simulation Program.
straydog02 1 year ago
I see that you removed my comments,The last time i checked they had about fifty thumbs up,Your no better than the people who do cover up the truth,And i dont mean NASA.
arobekie 1 year ago
@arobekie
I haven't posted here in over two weeks .. I don't remember removing any of your comments, but if I did, it would only be because they contained nothing but flame baiting ridicule which is not pertinent to the discussion.
You are free to post any pro Apollo/anti hoax information you like here, just as long as it isn't the typical apollogist, troll trash.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 My comment did not contain any flame baiting ridicule,It was a legitimate comment.
arobekie 1 year ago
bravo! pretty and simple experiment , it seems more if a hard surface was covered with becha sand or a compost with other components for make the fake.or different shots with different soils.
MIGUEL2005LIMA 1 year ago
@stalkervision
Attacking Jarrah, as usual .. I can't imagine why, can you? ... LOL
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
YOU put JW on a pedestal, not me. Since he is YOUR hero (which defines your character in a rather pathetic way) give me your BEST example of what he has "PROVEN".
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
Jarrah's proven every aspect of the hoax, but if I had to pick one I consider the most damaging against NASA , it would be the fact that nobody outside of NASA's Deep Space Tracking Network ever tracked any Apollo craft to the Moon .. Not the Soviets, not the hams and not even Jodrell Bank, who has tons of documented data showing their tracking of the Soviet Luna missions, but no data or documentation proving they tracked Apollo.. Only NASA facilities make that claim.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
JW hasm't "proven" one thiing. He has been thouroughly debunked by people with more talent than I (philwebb59 is one of the best). But do you not realize the illogic in arguing that we didn't go because you believe no one other than NASA tracked them? Regardless that's just not true anyay. Here is a totally non-NASA related link: "astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html"
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
How stupid are you? .. First of all, Apollogist Phil Webb is a proven LIAR.. Watch Jarrah's latest video to see the proof of how Webb distorted Jarrah's evidence, took his words out of context, then blatantly LIED about Jarrah's hoax evidence.
Second of all, Bill Keel never tracked any craft beyond low earth orbit with his back yard Mickey Mouse telescope, and the one Australian radio dish that was capable of tracking Apollo to the Moon was being run by NASA.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
"Bill Keel never tracked any craft beyond low earth orbit"
Yes he did.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
Bill Keel had a home made, back yard telescope that wasn't capable of seeing beyond low earth orbit.
If he claims otherwise, then he's just another delusional Apollogist, looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
"Bill Keel had a home made, back yard telescope that wasn't capable of seeing beyond low earth orbit"
Mr. Keel published two books - The Road to Galaxy Formation (published in August 2002 by Springer-Praxis, released in a revised second edition in 2008. At a more popular level, The Sky at Einstein's Feet (right), published in October 2005, traces the many ways in which relativity has informed the last century of astronomical discovery.
What have you done? I know...LIE!
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
Just because Keel worte a couple f books, doesn't mean he tracked any Apollo craft to the Moon... because he didn't.
What have I done? ( in context with the Apollo fraud) .. Help expose the LIE.
What have you done? ( in context with the Apollo fraud) .. LIE to protect it..
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
"Just because Keel worte (sic) a couple f books, doesn't mean he tracked any Apollo craft to the Moon... because he didn't."
WRONG, as always. Mr. Keel knows exponentially more than you coulld ever hope to about astronomy and tracking the Apollo spacecraft. If he says he did it, I find him more than qualified to trump your opinion. The only lies involved here are the ones you are telling yourself. I quote reputable sources and scientific fact. What do you do? Mud-sling.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
Keel is a lying idiot, just like you .. but please do keep trolling your lies on my chanel, since it helps to run up my view count!
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
Again, ZERO evidence, just worthless self-absorbed trash-talk. The Moon - been there, done that.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
You've been to the Moon, Monkeyboy?
Well, congrats then ! .. That's more than Neil and Buzz ever did.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
Her's another traxking link: "svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm"
Do you need more?
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
Grahn never tracked any Apollo craft to the Moon either.. He only claimed to pick up a few signals near the Moon and we all know that radio signals and voice transmissions can be bounced off of the Moon from Earth.. So Grahn, with his rinky dink equipment in the back of his car, didn't have a clue.. Jarrah has also debunked Sven's silly claims in his recent video.
Have you even watched any of Jarrahs's vidoes? .. If so, you wouldn't be making such stupid claims.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
"Have you even watched any of Jarrahs's vidoes?"
Way to many, unfortunately. It was his videos that made me get a U-Tube account. After at first thinking, "Hmmm...he may have something here, I quickly realized how deceptive he actually is. Too bad you are too blind to recognize this. As far as bouncing signals off the Moon, you wouldn't get the doppler effect, among other things, unless you were tracking a moving object. Explain THAT.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
The Soviets sent an unmanned Zond mission to the Moon with pre-recorded Cosmonaut conversations on board the craft ..Conversations that at first, NASA believed to be real ... It's no big deal.
Voice transmissions can be sent from the Earth to the Moon, with no way of telling if the transmissions are really coming from the Moon, or just being bounced off the Moon.
Please get a clue.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
"Voice transmissions can be sent from the Earth to the Moon, with no way of telling if the transmissions are really coming from the Moon, or just being bounced off the Moon."
Honestly. I don't know about that...YET. But I mentioned the Doppler effect on the way to/from the Moon. Do YOU have a clue as to what THAT is all about? By your answer, I would guess...NO!
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
Comment removed
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
Comment removed
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
So simple. Sand of many granule sizes were used wherever they needed them. Some was powder and some was grains of larger proportions. Fast and slow motions were co-ordinated according to the sand effects needed. You forgot to show the famous untouched sand around the rover, without footprints or tire tracks.
EGMAG 1 year ago
@arobekie i wonder how sibrel got that cannister??
sounds like someone trying to blow the cover to me...
neil armstrongs behaviour is beyond dodgy and the FACT that they were ALL high ranking freemasons sworn to secrecy with blood oaths isn't too reassuring either...anyone participating in a deception op at the highest levels is WELL PART OF THE PROGRAM...all they are trying to achieve is
socialist totalitarian world government...
NASA
the spaced based weapons/PSYOP crew
wsee 1 year ago
@arobekie Well said.
MrPheonix5 1 year ago
I saw this video about the VLT in Chile. It's the VERY LARGE TELESCOPE, and the astronomer was excited about finally showing the apollo debris left behind, but something strange happened and you can't find any photos of the moon. He said you could see a clearly at 10meters using it. We do have the technology to zero in on Earth objects from what, 250 miles with amazing detail. NASA knows they didn't go and they are not allowed to talk about Apollo other than "we went to the moon". Nasa lied.
nrobnas43 1 year ago
We never landed on the moon! Study the Vann Allen radiation belt and you will realise why!
petroneva 1 year ago
Study the 'Vann Allen radiation belt and you will realise we never made it to the moon! No argument!.
petroneva 1 year ago
Soooo, Nasa had both an indoor and outdoor set when both consisted of sand? I think this, as Jarrah would say, is a "Stawman argument".
So, what did they do? Get a crap load of sand and dye it the color of regolith? Did they happen to have an outdoor and indoor set in order film? The more complicated you make this, it seems more and more probable that it would be easier to just go to the moon.
Europasingstome 1 year ago
@Europasingstome Funny you mention regolith. Nasa is making regolith grinding rocks from Stillwater mine with the geological survey team. Nasa has a website proving that they are doing this. They say they have a recipe to make regolith to practice going the moon. If they went 6 times( successfully), they wouldn't need to do this. And Nasa recently test monkeys with radiation to see how they'd do, and I guess not well, b/c Nasa said they aren't going till more tests can be done. This is fact.
nrobnas43 1 year ago
@nrobnas43 Why do you think that just because they went to the moon, they wouldn't need a test analog for lunar regolith?
Europasingstome 1 year ago
@nrobnas43 Three things, in case you havem't already figured them out for yourself":
1) The 10 meter resoluyion of the VLT is still not small enough to detect even the largest item ;eft on the moon. The base of the LEM itself would only be about 1/2 a pixel.
2) The regolith needs to be replaced due ro the erosion of previous use that causes real dust to be made. (If they even bothered to keep the old stuff)
3) Monkeys? Low level exposure/long term space travel research.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
Oh dear, not another silly sockpuppet shill.
The pixel size excuse is getting pretty tired now .. NASA has the ability to photograph objects the size of cars from low earth orbit, yet can't figure out how to do the same from lunar orbit? ... Riight.
Their LRO photos are photoshopped garbage.
As for the rest of the nonsense you posted, all I can say is that Ralph Rene got it right when he said .. "You don't send a man where you never sent the monkey."
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 You so shilly! Pixel size is what it is, so I imagine you should be getting tired of the facts by now. NASA is not in the business of satifsying your unfounded delusions. The LRO was engineered for NASA's own scientific purposes. The LRO pix photoshopped? Now, you're just grasping at imaginary straws. And the fact that you quote Ralph Rene does say it all.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
Pixel size is not what it is, it's what NASA's and your excuse is for the LRO pics not being able to image the Apollo trash, allegedly left on the Moon.
I would think even a brainwashed monkey like you would wonder why some of the alleged landing sites show "footpaths", while other don't... Funny how none of the LRO pics show any Rovers or Rover tracks either .. but then NASA forgot to put the Rover tracks in most of their original faked Apollo photos also.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
Yes, unfortunately for you and the rest of the Apollo Fanny Boys , it's also been proven that the new LRO photos were processed thru Adobe Photoshop.
So if you're gonna defend NASA's Apollo lies, at least try to keep up with the latest proof that even their new photos are laughable fakes.
Do you even understand why a monkey would have been sent into the radiation of outer space, before sending humans?
Like your pals, you're just parroting typical NASA disinformation.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 What great circular logic you use. The photos are photoshopped, but they were too stupid to include the rovers and their tracks? You obviously wouldn't believe the photos that do show them (and YES they are there -just another EXCELLENT job of research on your part). If you're going to trash-talk NASA, please try and do some real homework. Do you understand that monkeys and many other biological samples were sent into space well before we went to the moon? Peace.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
Yes, it has been PROVEN that the LRO photos were processed thru Adobe Photoshop.. I don't understand what part of that you don't understand.
And yes, NASA was obviouslty stupid enough to leave out not only the Rover tracks, again, but also the Rovers!
Do you really not find it strange that not all of the ''landing site" photos show the alleged footpaths???
What NASA missions sent any monkeys into the Van Allen belts and beyond, before the launch of Apollo 11?
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 Photoshopped proven? Naw. Again, you can find the stuff you say was left out if you look for it. The monkeys and many other biological samples were sent into space to see the effects SPACE had on them (i.e., virtual weightlessness, any unforseen factors, etc.). They didn't have to be sent into the VABs as the effects of high doses of radiation were fairly well understood. They wanted to see if there was anything ELSE to worrry about. It's ALL good!
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
Yes, it has been proven that the LRO photos are processed thru Adobe Photoshop .. I will send you the link to that proof as soon as I have more time.. It's also been proven that NASA has the technology to resolve an image down to the size of a beachball on Mars, yet refuses to image the Apollo junk that's supossedly strewn about on the lunar surface.. Which is proof that they are hiding the truth about Apollo, whether you can accept that fact or not.
straydog02 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
As for your belief that the VA belts are not dangerous to humans, all we have is NASA's word for that, during Project Apollo.. and as we all know, all their word means is NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER.
Recently, NASA scientists have admitted that no manned missions will fly to the Moon, or to Mars, until the proper radiation shielding is INVENTED... Yet they allegedly landed 24 humans on the Moon 40 years ago ???
LOL
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
Correction: SENT 24 humans to the Moon.. They only allegedly landed 12 of them.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 Don't get me wrong my friend, radiation is potentially lethal, and absolutly so in the VABs - IF you stay there long enough. I have some links on my home channel that provide plenty of info on how they mitigated the risk. The future plans for the moon and mars involve long term excursions (the moon mission is to build a sustainable base there), so NASA wants to ensure the base they build will be adequate for long term exposure, as well as being able to deal with solar flares.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
All you have is NASA's word for it that they knew how to mitigate the radiation risks.. But since they never sent any monkeys into or beyond the belts before allegedly sending 24 humans through them, then I don't believe we have been told the truth about the real dangers of the radiation on the way to, and on the Moon.
The "long term" efftects of radiation is just another predictable excuse as to why no manned flights are able to travel beyond low earth orbit today.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 Just NASA's word? Absolutely WRONG! I am a Physical Science Tech where I deal with radiological controls. Measuring and documenting radiation levels during nuclear operations, repair and maintenance (among a lot of ather radiological duties). I have been doing this for 29+ years. I KNOW their data is reasonable. I have some links on my channel that support NASA very well. Feel free to check them out, but be warned, they use in-depth math and physics...a.k.a. REAL science.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
You're a Physical Science Tech? .. Would you like to prove that, or should I just take your word for it?... LOL
You have links on your chanel that support NASA , plus you have a list of "friends" who are some of the most insulting Apollogist trolls on YouTube, plus you recently joined YouTube, which means you're most likely one of those Apollogist's sockpuppets.
a.k.a. A REAL troll.
straydog02 1 year ago
Comment removed
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
If you can't prove your claims of your alleged qualifications, then why bother to make them? .. It doesn't matter what any of us does for a living, as that has no bearing on the Apollo Hoax anyway.
Your "friends" are definately what they are, which would be flame baiting Apollogist sockpuppet trolls .. So I'm glad to hear you're not like them .. I just hope their disagreeable ways don't rub off on you.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 My qualifications exist,because, I do, to the best of my ability, tell the truth. I realize your occupation (if you have one) probably doesn't qualify you for anything on this forum, but my work with radiological controls does provide me with a fair amount of understanding regarding them and their relationship to the Apollo program. I like the scientific points made by most of my "friends". Their points are normally well illustrated.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
You don't know what my occupation is, so cut the crap.. Just because you think you know something about "radiological controls", doesn't make you an expert on Apollo.
The "scientific" points your 'friends" make are nothing but more Apollogitst BS.. The crap they spew on YouTube is just meaningless ridicule of people like Jarrah White, who knows how to expose them for the disingenuous assholes they really are.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
One more thing, as far as friends go, I used to think that J. White was either ignorant or mis-informed himself. However, he has proven to be manipulative, childish, and predatory. He like to call names and discredit reputable people. I can also prove conclusively where he calls Phil Plait a liar when Mr. Plait was undeniably telling the truth.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
One more thing, Phil Plait is a proven LIAR.. Jarrah White is not.
Now please go away and waste someone else's time with your ridiculous and misinformed opinions.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog 02
You are either telling your own lies, or repeating the lies of others. Your own parroting of his misinformation and non-critical thinking cannot lead you to the truth. Go on and worship Jarrah White. That is your prerogative. I will continue to look up to educated, qualified scientists for my inspiration. I understand I am probably wasting your time somewhat, as you appear to be close-minded. But I will continue to rebut the more non-sensical comments.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
This discussion has nothing to do with "worshiping "Jarrah White.. but it is pretty funny how you clowns are so obsessed with him ..It's understandable though, since he's the researcher the Apllogists fear the most.
Not only has Jarrah provided the evidence necessary to show that Apollo was a complete fraud, but he's also exposed your "friends" for the obnoxious liars they are.
I'm not the one swallowing or parroting disinformation .. That's obviously your job.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
I cannot speak for the "others", as you call them, but it was actually a couple of his videos that got me to get a U-tube account. His videos are very slick and well produced - he DOES have a talent for that. As I first watrched them I DID think, "Hmmm, this guy seems to have a point here. However, especially after I watched some for a second time, I noticed things like, "Hey, THAT guy is no expert on that subject, THAT was taken out of context, that's NOT what he said, etc.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
Your fear and misguided ridicule of Jarrah White is quite understandable, considering the fact that he's proven many times over ( with his slick and well produced videos) that Apollo was a monumental FRAUD.
You're just another clueless, brainwashed , Apollo Fanny Boy, parroting the same propaganda they all do.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 To continue, JW does NOT tell the truth. I found these things out with my own research. My "friends" ALL contacted me after I made a few posts of my own. I checked out their sites and watched their videos before I accepted. Some took me a couple of days to decide. My basis, is that their videos overwhelmingly use good science and critical thinking to present their points. They are not all perfect, but I have yet to see them deliberately do the deceptive things JW does.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow "I can also prove conclusively where he calls Phil Plait a liar when Mr. Plait was undeniably telling the truth."
I can prove coclusively, that Plait is a whining wimp, afraid to give Jarrah 15 minutes of time to show him the major solar flares during Apollo, for his comment. Since Plait has already lied about them, he won't comment. He also won't comment on Operation Dirty Trick, as well as his defamation of Bill Kaysing. Plait whines more than most infants!
un4g1v3n1 1 year ago
@un4g1v3n1
Can you prove ONE single item you MHBs claim to show the moon landing didn't happen?
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow It's been proven over and over again.
Kaysing proved it.
Rene proved it.
Even the more confrontational Sibrel proved it.
Now, besides Jarrah, and myself, plenty of others are proving it.
It's just you, and the likes of you who refuse to use your own eyes, ears, reason, intelligence, and common sense, who cannot fathom the truth.
Be it your pride, ego, or unwavering faith in something which you cannot prove yourself that keeps you ignorant!!
WAKE UP!
un4g1v3n1 1 year ago
@un4g1v3n1
Is that why YOU won't answer my question? Also, the "likes of me" includes every prominent scientist in the WORLD! Yeah, they most definately refuse to use their reason, intelligence, etc. That's JUST whar makes them so successful. Typical rant by a MHB. Quit your propaganda speech and tell me what your BEST piece of evidence is.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
A for the subject of the dangers of space radiation, it was the reaspn the Soviets never bothered to send any manned missions to the Moon .. They knew it couldn't be done without risking the lives of their Cosmonauts.
Unlike NASA, who apprarently didn't give a damn how many Apollo astronauts died on world wide, "live" TV .
Or did they?
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 You really need to find better sources of information. If they didn't plan on going to the Moon, the Russians would never have spent the hundreds of millions (possibly billions) trying to develop the N1 rocket, which they worked on until 1976. Look it up for yourself and you will see how ill-informed your sources are.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
Of course the Soviets planned on going to the Moon .. But planning on something and actually being able to accomplish it, are two completely different things.
One of the top Soviet scientists told Sir Bernard Lovel of Jodrell Bank, that the Soviets couldn't send cosmonauts to the Moon until they could be assured of their safety against the deadly radiation.
Obviously you only understand NASA disinformation, and then parrot it, like your clueless "friends".
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 Planning and "building", spending the hundreds of millions and possibly billions of dollars to build what they did, IS one thing. Accomplishing it wasn't done for a variety of factors, including poor propulsion choices. Both the US and Russia wouldn't send someone to the moon unless they thought the risk was acceptable. If the Soviets did not have a plan similar to ours to mitigate that risk, the cash-strapped nation would never have spent the money they did.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
The Soviets knew the risk of sending humans to the moon was unacceptable, especially after spending all of their time and money on craft they hoped would able to do it. .. The bottom line was, they didn't send any manned missions ( though they were technically more advanced than NASA ) because they knew it couldn't be done ... You see, unlike the Americans, they did send a monkey into the belts, but it didn't survive the radiation...So they sent an unmanned Rover instead.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02 Did the soviet scientist ask the question before or after they built their lunar lander,It certainly would be a waste of a lot of roubles.
arobekie 1 year ago
@arobekie
Before it was built, I believe. The Soviets, like the Americans, were in the space race to win, but after developing their launch rockets etc. they sent turtles and mealworms to orbit the Moon during Zond.. Allegedly they all came back alive, since those type of criiters can withstand huge levels of radiation. Levels that would kill humans. Apparently the monkey the Soviets sent into the Van Allen belts wasn't so lucky, so they pulled the plug on their manned flights to the Moon.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
First of all, WHAT monkey? The turtles amd mealworms, etc. were destroyed on re-entry whan the capsule lost pressure due to a bad gasket. The Russians spent hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars trying to develop their N1 rocket (specifically for a manned Moon mission) up until 1976. The rocket was an ultimate failure due to a poor choice for propulsion fuel.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow
You don't know about the monkey coming back fried from the VA belt radiation?
You don't know about the monkey?.. You're telling a different story than the Soviets did about those turtles and mealworms then .. They claimed thet all got home safe and sound .. but if that was just a disinformation lie, and you know more about their Zond mission than they do, then the deaths of the turtles and worms would be just one more reason not to send their cosmonauts to the Moon.
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
"The rocket was an ultimate failure due to a poor choice for propulsion fuel."
Yet that same rocket successfully launched an unmanned Rover during Project Apollo.. An unmanned Rover that was at least 30 years more advanced than any conventional NASA technology at the time.
A Rover that really looked like a space vehicle, instead of a"'moon" buggy, golf cart with lawn chairs, that looked more like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
straydog02 1 year ago
@straydog02
Okay, I must have been thinking about something else with the turtles, because you are right that they WERE successfully recovered. However, I still fail to find any credible reference to a Russian space monkey getting "fried". They didn't even send their first one(s) until 1983. Where did you get YOUR monkey info?The Rover rocket was NOT the N1.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
Because they are team players who don't want their careers ruined, or their lives threatened by those who are hiding the truth about Apollo.
It's amazing what otherwise honest people will do to either protect their income, their reputations, or possibly their lives.
straydog02 2 years ago
If that's so true, than why is this information so readily available on the internet? Sure, Nasa has tried to counter all the bullshit coming from conspiracy theorists, but if this were a bigger deal than you guys make it out to be, why aren't they lining up these moon landing deniers and shooting them down?
Or why isn't the government shutting down anything on youtube? or the internet in general?
Europasingstome 1 year ago
haha. this is weak! Sand! ha. Propagandists! ha. Lazy assertions and weak science....
anotherdamnmole 2 years ago 6
"haha" and "weak" are not a rebuttals.. but they are better than the flame baiting ridicule, which is usually the standard Apollogist fare.
straydog02 2 years ago
it's not worth the effort to rebut this... this one has been well dismantled.
Trust me, I would LOVE to believe this stuff. REALLY.
It does nothing to further your argument when you stand behind stuff that is this weak. Isn't that the idea: that I'm supposed to be skeptical? Skepticism is good.
Frankly, when you behave the way you do, you have as much credibility as someone who interprets the bible literally. some of this stuff is compelling; not this.if I'm an 'Apollogist', you're a hoaxtard.
anotherdamnmole 2 years ago 5
Well, I see it didn't take you long to start the flame baiting ridicule.. You even used the dreaded "H" word! .. LOL
anotherdamntroll is even a better name for you.
So if this evidence has "already been dismanteled", then I assume the only reason you're here is to spew ridicule.
I don't have the time to waste arguing with you, but I didn't make this video.. I only hosted it for Jarrah White.. So if you have any complaints, send them his way.
straydog02 2 years ago
but you started the name calling... I was trying to point out how ridiculous it is to call me an 'Apollogist'...as ridiculous as it is to call you a 'Hoaxtard'...both admittedly pretty funny terms.
even you have to admit that what is presented here is not the strongest argument and certainly NOT above scrutiny. I deem it to be weak evidence and poor science.
If you do not agree and feel as strongly as you do, you have the opportunity to proceed without name calling.
anotherdamnmole 2 years ago
I was just having some fun with your user name .. You gotta admit that anothedamntroll was pretty funny.
I'm tired of all the mud slinging, flame baiting ridicule and arguing with people who have already decided, for whatever reason, that the official Apollo record is true.
straydog02 2 years ago
I assume that you would like to persuade more people to your side of the argument. This does not persuade.
I came here skeptical, it's true, not convinced one way or the other.
my disagreement is not an attack so relax...
anotherdamnmole 2 years ago
Actually, I have no interest in persuading anyone to agree with me about Apollo or any other subject .. Everyone is free to believe whatever they choose.
straydog02 2 years ago
so retarted
rbowden123 2 years ago
That should be "retarded".
L O L
straydog02 2 years ago
What kind of evidence would you need to convince you that the moon landings actually happened.
fiesta1100 2 years ago
What kind of evidence would you need to convince you that the Moon landings were faked?
How about starting here.
sourcewatch*org/index*php?title=Moon_Hoax
straydog02 2 years ago
The only evidence that would sway my opinion is a high resolution picture of each landing site taken by an independent source,I know that the LRO belongs to NASA but so far the swayometer seems to be in favour of a moon landing,I dare say that in the future there will be high res pictures taken by an independent source and only then will the truth be known.
fiesta1100 2 years ago
Independent high resolution photos of the "landing" sites would be great .. That should prove once and for al if the Apollo debris is really on the Moon.
But even though NASA will never produce any hig res photos, we now have some lunar orbital and telescopic photos of the alleged Apollo 15 "landing" site that prove the surface photos don't match the Mt Hadley mountain terrain seen in the orbital photos.
straydog02 2 years ago
I'd like to see this "proof".
Europasingstome 1 year ago
yes but if u put a footprint on the sand unless is weat it dosent show the print in the moon surfuce the soil was really thin and footprints were very clear because the vacuum keeps particles together...just proven ur wrong
badsign1980 2 years ago
Both artificial lunar regolith and damp sand will produce the same type of bootprints that are seen in the Apollo photos... So you haven't proven anything wrong, except your own supposition.
straydog02 2 years ago
@Jeff00Boyardee.
Did the LEM had a toilet in it?
The question is maybe funny but genuine.
How many hours they spend there?
potrodsas 2 years ago
Comment removed
potrodsas 2 years ago
Jeff, why the landing pads are clean and shiny (despite the disturbance of the landing caused by engine power of the LM ) and yet Aldrin has a lot of dust on his boots in a Wikipedia photo.
Question is:
Did Aldrin had a brush, to re polish the ridiculous legs of this surrealistic looking tin bucket ,that supposedly had the power to travel at speeds which are frightening even for today's technological standards?
To me it looks like a washing machine combined with a dryer.Not a spacecraft.
potrodsas 2 years ago
@potrodsas - "why the landing pads are clean and chiny"
Because due to the lack of atmosphere on the moon no particles got suspended in air causing them to 'billow' and float down to rest on the pads.
As you can see at 1:55, each particle dislodged by the descent engine follows a path based on it's initial speed and trajectory. Because of the high speed, almost all of the particles were carried far beyond the pads.
By the way, shiny pads are a proof of it being in a low gravity vacuum.
Jeff00Boyardee 2 years ago
Yet the Surveyor pads were covered with a lot of dust.. Which means your explaination of why the LM pads had no dust on them is just more Apollogist BS.
straydog02 2 years ago
Why do the landing pads of the LM are so clean and shiny after landing(wikipedia picture) when even the boots of Aldrin are covered in dust?
Did Aldrin had a brush with him and cleaned the legs of that strange looking vehicle? or..what?
potrodsas 2 years ago
The many inconsistancies and anomalies in the official Apollo photographic record proves it was all staged, during the Apollo Simulation Program .. So the only real question is why did NASA have to fake the Apollo photography?
straydog02 2 years ago
The real question is - with all of the convoluted scenarios introduced by the hoaxtards to try and explain the possible staging of every aspect of the physical, photographic and geological record of the missions - who in their right minds couldn't believe that it was really easier just to go to the damn thing?
Jeff00Boyardee 2 years ago 2
Jeff .. Please refrain from posting flame baiting comments on my chanel.. Thanks.
The use of front screen projection to stage the Apollo photography was much easier than sending 27 humans to the Moon, using that ridiculous looking, antiquated 1969 conventional technology, without any proper radiation shielding.
Check out how the photography was faked.
fourwinds10*com/siterun_data/space/space_exploration/news*php?q=1248211354
straydog02 2 years ago
When the LM took off the moon to reach a speed of 4000mph(!)which way it head it ,since they could see no stars?
potrodsas 2 years ago
The LM never took off from the Moon .. So seeing stars was not really necessary.
straydog02 2 years ago
Sorry, I really didn't understand how the "lunar regolith" theory was busted. It sounded like you were talking about arguments for the conspiracy claim, then you just cut straight to that argument.
smunp 2 years ago
Pro-NASA types point to videos of astronauts kicking up dust, which promptly falls back to the ground.
They say that this dust movement can't be done on earth because it would stir up clouds. However, sand behaves exactly like moondust when it's kick. It goes up and comes back down without making any clouds.
Of course then they beg the question about bootprints. Saying that dry sand doesn't leave prints. This is a strawman because the prints are only seen in the still photos, not the videos.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
So now the fairy tale gets even more convoluted - we need to have two completely separate studios - one filled with sand for the video shots and a completly identical, yet separate one with very fine particles to leave those distinct footprints.
And then you have the nerve to talk about strawman arguements -
Jeff00Boyardee 2 years ago