This is how they faked it. You will choose not to believe what you see, but some people who aren't emotionally invested in NEEDING America to have conquered the Moon (when they can't even go 1/5th of 1% as far today, 40 years in the future) will be objective when they watch this video. Awake children - if it doesn't frighten you....just add this part to the end of triple (w))dot) youtube (dot)com
@westham4everUKshine. No, it's what Kennedy said. He said it was going to be hard. That's all. Part of his famous speech, very moving. It was a bit like the FA cup final in 1975. Frank Lampard Senior dancing round the corner flag. A very moving moment.
I'm amazed at the cool detached way the astronauts go through the checklist and make comments, this was an uncredibly dangerous part of the mission, one tiny glitch and they're dead. Idiots who say it was fake are doing these brave men wrong and should be smacked across their face until they cry.
@Blahblobify They are in a fckn rocket and you can hear their voices? Ever been in a helicopter trying to report? YOu shouldn't even be able to hear them, and if you could, their voices should be shakey.............so..........unbelievably.............FAKE.
@jerichomutant That's right- the LM was powered by rocket motors AND you can hear their voices. Why are you feigning surprise at this?
I stood close by to my nephews whilst they fired off some rockets on Nov 5th (admittedly powered by gunpowder this time) and we could quite easily hold a conversation as they did so.
Not all rockets are big, powerful and noisy. Especially not those designed to work in a vacuum and in 1/6th gravity. But you would know that if you had done any research.
@eventcone Yes and I guess you believe that this unwelded aluminum panel piece of shizz could withstand the g-forces incurred while landing/leaving the lunar surface? And no radiation leaked in the unwelded parts? No air/heat leaked out? ...............................hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18332HR.jpg
@jerichomutant "...unwelded aluminum panel piece of shizz ...".
I don't where you're coming from on this! What are you trying to say exactly? Can you provide some detail?
Personally, I am not familiar with the precise jointing technology used on the LM. However I would not be surprised if welding had not been used - after all it's not made from steel like an oil tanker! The most common form of joint in metallic aerospace structures is mechanical (rivets & bolts).
@jerichomutant "unwelded aluminum panel piece of shizz could withstand the g-forces incurred while landing/leaving the lunar surface? And no radiation leaked in the unwelded parts? No air/heat leaked out?".
I see you're talking about the buckled LM Equipment Bay panels.
This bay is not pressurised, it is not part of the crew cabin. So air and heat CANNOT leak in, OR out. The panels serve only to shield the equipment from sunlight.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for you not to have......
@jerichomutant .......researched this BEFORE letting fly with a volley of ridiculous and unfounded accusations.
As I asked before, why have YOU not researched the official history of Apollo? After all, it's the VERY LEAST you can do if you're going to accuse so many people of multi-billion dollar fraud, fakery and deception (and who knows maybe, like some conspiracy theorists, of murder and coercion).
@eventcone One look at that pic, a craptastic aluminum chickencoop sinks the entire Apollo HOAX. I did research it, that's how I know it was FAKE. It's hard to debate on Youboob cuz they make it hard to insert links to pics & such...stupid site. But, go on YT & watch the ENTIRE doc called: Was it Only a Paper Moon? If you don't then you are a hypocrite for accusing me of 'not' researching things. You see, I BELIEVED they landed on the Moon once. I really did..before logic got the best of me.
They are in sealed spacesuits talking on a radio and surrounded by a vacuum toy stupid shit fuck. try to think before saying something next time idiot.
@Blahblobify There was no time delay during the conversations between Houston and the astroNOTs. There should at least be a 2.5 s time delay seeing as it taks more than a full second for light from the Moon to travel to the Earth each night, and a conversation is two way - meaning it would take twice as long. There is rarely a time delay..........physically impossible, unless they filmed it on earth in the same damn room.
"No time delay" OMGWTFBBQ......you do know that if you record the conversation at ONE END, like in Houston, that when they answer right away it's because the delay in transmission has already occured, right, kweer?
Like if they sent a message from FUCKING PLUTO and they answered immediately it'd be because the delay had already taken place at their end, right?
@Blahblobify Um, the conversation is 2-way. If you have watched A LOT of the transmissions, Houston asks a question, & the NOTs answer right away, no delay. Then the NOTs say something & NASA responds, right away, no delay. It is not just on Houston's end, but both ways. Watch any live broadcast today - with SATELLITE technology, 40 years in the future -when Larry King interviews someone in NY, there is an awkward time delay, yet in 1969 with rotary tech, no delay...from the moooooooooon?
@jerichomutant "Houston asks a question, & the NOTs answer right away, no delay".
No, they do not. Find one piece of conversation where that is conclusive. You won't.
As for the other way: There is no delay to questions asked by the astronauts because Houston hears the question at the same time that it is recorded.
You people seem to have a psychological need to believe this stuff. So much so that your judgement is shot to pieces. Your are blinded by your own prejudice.
@jerichomutant "Lord this is cheezy, even by the 60's standards. No wonder Kubrick didn't want his name in the credits".
That film purporting to show that Kubrick was involved in faking the moonlandings was a hoax, a piss-take aimed right at you CT's. Still got the fish hook in your mouth?
Ever seen Kubrick's attempt at showing men on the moon? Despite only being 2 hours or so long it's filled with errors.
The dozens of hours of Apollo footage contains no such errors. Put it together..
It was a huge challenge. When Kenedy said: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade... not because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard." He wasn't joking. Much of the technology had still to be invented. New materials had to be created. Electronics were still in their infancy. And, the complex infrastructure surrounding the programme had to be devised and put in place. It was an entirely new sphere of human endeavour.
@1965christian You are right, things were not too reliable back in those days. Read any couple of books about the Apollo programme - maybe one from the standpoint of the flight controllers and one which is an astronauts account - and you'll see that there were 'glitches' and unknowns around every corner. Saying that, the Lunar Module was the most reliable component of the system. It always did it's job and on one occasion saved the lives of the crew.
@MikeYoungBAhons Think you have to remember how much of a challenge this was, how the technology was being stretched. Also of course, the circumstances: to some I'm sure the Moon race was a cold war "battle" that had to be won. If we were to return to the moon today we just would not take the same risks. The Apollo flights were "test flights", whereas today I imagine we would want a level of reliability consistent with an operational regime, as Nasa tried to achieve with the shuttle?
@MikeYoungBAhons Hahaha, the Lunar Module? You mean this unwelded piece of crap a special ed 4th grader would be embarrassed to call his science project? ,,,,, hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18332HR.jpg
The KAGUYA spacecraft is in orbit around the moon. The laws of physics are controlling it's motion which makes for a very smooth ride. It doesn't have to manoeuvre about in space so there is no thruster activity. A fully powered Lunar Module Ascending from the moon's surface to a rendezvous in orbit is quite a different beast. It needs a lot of guidance and control. The rocking motion seen in the Apollo 15 ascent film is a result of the way the guidance and control systems work. (see previous e
@MikeYoungBAhons Well I can live with that. Thus, assuming that this is true, then this oscillating and discontinuous movement of Apollo in vacuum gives a clear idea how NOT-good and unreliable was the control system at that time. This is because that unlinear movement of Apollo (up and down, left right, that you can see here) can only be caused by the continuous activation of the small directional rockets located on Apollo side, perhaps manually by astronauts or by a 'computer'..
Hey eventcone - the next thing they'll be telling us is that Star Trek was faked and filmed in a studio!! I dunno about you but where I live on the the planet it's nearly midnight and I'm not just tired because I've had a hard day at work but tired because every time I look at anything Apollo on You Tube there are always tedious hoaxsters comments to wade through before you come across someone (like yourself) who knows what they are talking about. Groan!
@1965christian Now no offence Christian, but would you care to tell us what academic and professional credentials or experience you have that would lend weight to your assertion that "the way the module seems moving and oscillating seems totally wrong".
I mean no disrespect here: If you have relevant knowledge then fair enough, but if you don't, at least consider how easy it is to misjudge these things. Personally I see nothing "wrong" in the motion, given how the craft was controlled.
@eventcone No, I am not offended. We are here to talk. I am not making conferences. Ok, I am an engineeer, but this doesn't mean anything and I think both you and me are not rocket scientists. I am afraid I still keep my opinion on my observation.. KAGUYA moves linearly and progressively, Apollo doesn't (as it appears to me here). This is not a scientific analyses, but just my simple and evident observation..... why this difference? what does that mean? I don't know. I don't care.
@1965christian Well I guess that's reasonable. You're basically saying "Hey, that looks wierd!".
But then, we all say that from time to time about the most ordinary and everyday things, like things our computers do, or our cars etc. It doesn't mean that something outlandish has caused it, or that someone is practicing some kind of deception upon us (unless some kind of Trojan program infecting our PC qualifies on that score!). But really, the explanation is mundane. So too with Apollo. :-)
@FatFreddy88 The best documentary is on Youtoob & it is called: "Was it Only a Paper Moon?" For all the diehard believers, I just ask that you watch the documentary with open eyes and heart. If you don't want to know the truth, you will choose to make up your mind before you watch it, or choose not to watch it. I would have you question why you are so reticent to not even watch the documentary, question what prevents you from even trying to learn as much about the Moon Landings as you can?
@jerichomutant "I would have you question why you are so reticent to.........watch the documentary, question what prevents you from even trying to learn as much about the Moon Landings as you can?"
I have wasted time on quite a few such documentaries. They are laced with absurd and pathetic claims that exhibit a woeful ignorance of science & technology.
Let me turn your point on you: What prevents YOU from trying to learn about the history of Apollo and how the moonlandings were achieved?
I've watched "Was it Only a Paper Moon?" I thought it provided some good evidence that the missions were faked. You seem to be a bit confused about my position. I think Apollo was a hoax. Here's a link to a thread I started on that.
There is no "good evidence" that the Apollo missions were faked. The charlatans that produce those videos don't believe it themselves, they are just making a buck off of gullible fools.
Landing a man on the moon and returning him to Earth safely is the greatest human achievement of modern times. It involved hundreds of thousands of people working for thousands of companies. It involved the coming together of countless technologies and disciplines. It may even have provided such an outlet for the fervent competition between the superpowers that it, quite remarkably, took the place of war. In history conspiracy theories will be viewed as reactions to something so au
Yeah...nobody expected the rocking motion to happen so it was never written into any flight simulation programmes. Although it was known about through flight testing it came as a surprise to some LM Pilots.
Hey, eventcone, going back to your original point, about the rocking motion of the ascent stage. Well you are absolutely right about the cause. The on-board computer used the RCS thrusters to keep the spacecraft in the correct attitude for orbital insertion. Because of the way that the computer managed the RCS system, one motor would fire and then the opposing motor would compensate. This caused the gentle rocking motion seen in the film. I read about this a while ago and nobody expected it to
@MikeYoungBAhons Hi Mike. Interesting isn't it? I would think that the extent of the rocking motion (amplitude, frequency) would be a function of the whole system, from the RCS thrust levels and repsonsiveness, to the LEM's moment of inertia about the relevant rotation axis.
Interesting how every little detail of Apollo is latched onto by the uninformed or ignorant and shoe-horned into some hoax theory. They don't want an explanation. They just want a theory to serve their own little agenda.
you worthless faggots,questioning something of this magnitude like its a film set,get real and grow up,your probably mommys little angels who go on media studies but really will face a life of dole when your little baby classes are over.these fellas had brains in there heads unlike you silky boys,and accomplished this what you see.do you really think they could build a set of hundreds of square miles and miles in height??!,patrick moore,stephen hawking both liars and your right,wow your clever!
@CT2507 The ascent stage engine didn't gimbal to control direction. This control was provided by the RCS thrusters. What you are seeing is the system "hunting" either side of the intended trajectory - it actually keeps it on course by making a series of corrections. Anyone who knows anything about Control Systems will know this and find nothing strange about it. As for "all rockets fly in a straight line" - there's no such thing. Rockets and everything else fly in a series of curves.
@eventcone it lifts only the LEM... try and imagine that. its not so hard. the stage doesn't need to move. only the LEM..seee... :)
use a helicopter and then fly straight up. thats what helicopters are good at. then the whole scene will dangle a bit due to the wire. but that's al right. u can always explain it away with all kinds of correction/compensation thrusters theories.
@CT2507 So the camera shot through the LEM window was actually taken through the window of a "LEM" suspended by wire from a helicopter as the latter climbed through thousands of feet above a "filmset"?
1. Your "filmset" covers thousands of square miles.
2. The LEM shadow doesn't "dingle dangle". There's no shadow from the alleged wire or helicopter, and the helicopter disturbes no dust.
But that's OK. You can always explain it away with ever more convoluted conspiracy theories.
@eventcone why would u expect the helicopter to disturb the dust if it is already like a 100 feet or more above the LEM when it starts!? try and think before u answer.
the film-set could easily be produced in an area like area 51. its just sand, rocks and hills. and made to cover several miles. thousands of miles is not necessary. that's an exaggeration. something u do a lot i think.
and from that angle u of course wouldn't see the shadow of the LEM dingle dangle. haha... what a (cont)
@eventcone also, the helicopter shadow and wire are the easiest things to edit out. just as they have edited out the wires which the astronauts are hanging from during all their bunny-jumping across the lunar surface.
What exactly IS a dingle dangle? Is it a swing? That LEM is going to swing a lot on your 100 foot wire, yet the shadow follows a ramrod straight path. Unless your swing is in the plane of the camera angle - a REMARKABLE coincidence and a stroke of luck for the film-maker! But even then you'd certainly see some effect in the shadow. Or is it an oscillation in pitch only? Not possible on a wire - it would transfer energy into a swing. Try it with a pendulum.
@CT2507 Yes, that's right. The entire LEM isn't dangling. It's moving through a small angle in pitch (small enough not to be apparent in the LEM shadow, as a swing would) each time the RCS corrects for attitude. Listen to the dialogue at 3.30: one of the crew makes a direct reference to the repeated firing of the RCS jets.
How did they accomplish the "Pitch-Over" manoeuvre on the end of that wire? They need some sort of rig - again not visible in the shadow.
@CT2507 Why would they even bother filming this? Why set themselves ANOTHER challenge? Why 7 attempted landings at all? They got away with it once - why dramatically increase the chances of exposure by faking again, and again, and again etc. Answer: they filmed it because it was easy, because it was real.
Didn't anyone tell you to always go for the simplest explanation, or that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
faking it was easy. look at how flimsy the LEM was build..haha. who the hell goes to the uncertain environement of another world in such a crappy build shit-pot!? look at how the outside plates are bulging in some places and kept in place with golden ducktape!! WTF!!
weren't they afraid that those black plates would come off during flight or during a micro meteorite shower?!
i'd be fucking afraid if it was me going to the moon for the first time!
@CT2507 I'm sorry you feel that way. You have given in to prejudice, and see what you WANT to see.
They filmed this to make the landings more believable? That just won't wash - it was already accepted as fact 4 missions previously. If Apollo 11 was faked as you claim they were certainly smart enough to know that they should quit while they were ahead!
@eventcone u have given in to the media brain wash machine. i have given in to study and research. hours and hours of looking at films photos and listening to both sides of the debate. and i now see what is there!
u know that the bigger a lie is the more people will accept it as truth. going only once and then never again, would have been real stupid. it would have looked much more suspicious, and attract a lot of unwanted curiosity.
@CT2507 Looked more suspicious? Hardly. People were asking: "Why do we keep going back?" by the time of Apollo 13, yet NASA had plans for Apollo 20.
The bigger a lie is? How about "the more outrageous a conspiracy theory is (& based on lies), the more people will buy into it"?
U say you've devoted hours to study and research and listened to both sides. Yet your arguments all appear to be based on pure intuition and/or common sense (never reliable) rather than specific scientific knowledge.
You're right, we could argue this both ways for a long time (and this is not the forum for that).
Governments DO lie. My opinion is they lie about SOME things, not EVERYthing (not even MOST things?). As for what you see in Apollo films: there are explanations for them all that don't require a conspiracy theory.
I think most of the media are cynical money makers and see stories (true, distorted of just plain untrue) as product. Not ALL though.
@CT2507 My friend, when you display the trait of brushing aside rational argument because it challenges your chosen beliefs, then you ARE prejudiced. Might I respectfully suggest that you consider a more "middle ground" position, where you remain receptive to both sides of the argument?
You might reasonably say that I should try my own medicine? Well I do. But I can only say that I know enough to see through too many of the hoax proponents' claims as nonsense, or in some cases, outright lies.
@eventcone sure i could choose a more diplomatic position and say: i don't really know, i wasn't there.
but at the same time i got to consider a very aggressive and pushy american media machine that is trying to sell me all kinds of ideas. and to them i say: i just don't buy it!
u know too much u say to see hoax claims as nonsense. i don't see it as a matter of knowledge, but a choice of faith. what u have chosen to believe u defend.
@CT2507 I'm interested in what you say about FAITH......
I don't think such matters should be decided by gut feelings, or by what you call faith. You have to use your intellect, education, and try to be as informed as possible (using reputable sources, both news media & academic).
However, I DO think that there has been a LOSS OF FAITH in the establishment on your part and this has lead you to where you are now. In some ways this is understandable.
@CT2507 Yes you would be afraid. The astronauts were too. They were courageous men who accepted the risks of the Test Flight business. Every Mercury, Gemini and Apollo mission was a test flight, and the damage to the equipment bay plates (not part of the LEM primary structure) is just the kind of problem that sometimes occurs on Test Flights. BTW, don't confuse the gold coloured Mylar film with structure. It's only purpose is to reflect sunlight to prevent the Descent Stage from overheating.
@CT2507 You say "faking it was easy" and then laugh at the LEM. If it's so obviously wrong, faking it would not have been "easy"! They went to all that trouble and YOU saw right through it? You're living proof of my assertion that they should have quit while ahead!
It's a lot easier to design a vehicle structure to operate in an airless, 1/6th gravity environment than one to operate here on earth. I think you've watched too many Sci-Fi movies that show spaceships built like Navy Destroyers.
@CT2507 The claims of moon landing fakery are not only extraordinary (like those of other conspiracy theories), they're also outlandish and outrageous. You therefore need some equally outrageous evidence. But you have none worthy of the name, only a list of questions that you cannot answer due to your own ignorance (no offense intended).
My friend, why not open your mind and look for those answers somewhere OTHER THAN with the conspiracy theorists?
well i think u are extraordinary, outlandish and outragerous!
when i look at those astronoust bunny jumping across the lunar surface i see idiots in stupid suits who move very awkwardly because their movments are hindered by wires! i get a clear sense that they are suspended and cant move freely. if u cant feel, sense and observe that then i feel sory for u.
What's especially striking about this particular film is that at the moment of pitch over (when the descent stage comes into view) the pattern of various features on the surface, from the equipment left behind by the astronauts to the various footprint trails, lunar rover tracks and lunar craters, can be clearly seen in the latest LRO images of the site (captured nearly 40 years later).
Wow, all the way from Hadley to Lunar orbit. A spectacular lift-off and immediate pitch-over. When Hadley Rille becomes visible the ascent stage yaws toward the north to follow it. Leaving the rille behind, Scott and Irwin cross relatively flat Palus Putredinis and fly just south of the large ghost crater, Spurr. Increasing in altitude and velocity, they pass the southern rim of the gigantic impact feature, Archimedes. The big crater visible just before engine shut-down is 2km deep Bancroft.
Just to inform you, the correct answer to the, as you say, "dumb" question of how many windows there are in the LM, is actually three! Forgot about the rendezvous window I guess. Pretty much sums it all up about your statements here.
@NASAvsPETE your obsessed by cameras by the sound of it.live rover tv and 16mm cameras.not frikkin rocket science! its obvious that for the research this was all that was required,it was not meant to be a movie,just geological exploration of the lunar surface,ppl seeing it on tv was a privlage
@NASAvsPETE Well no, there were two 16mm DAC cameras, one in the LM, one in the CM. You can tell because there are videos of the docking approach from both angles.
@NASAvsPETE Please try to get your references correct. It was a 16mm film camera inside, and a video telemetry feed from the rover outside. You know this is true, why are you arguing this point? We can view each feed right here on youtube.
Apollo 15, 16 and 17 each had a video feed of the ascent module departing. Are you saying this did not happen?
@NASAvsPETE I guess this means you didn't find any systems that were redundant, as you claimed.
Cry all you like about the lack of film cameras mounted outside the LM, that would have required another EVA during docking to retrieve. It's never going to prove squat.
@NASAvsPETE You can whine about wanting more cameras until the cows come home, but it's not really proving any points. You still haven't figured out how many windows the LM had or what size. You're making crazy demands again with no idea of the conditions. Mayeb you should do some fact-checking first, or you'll make a mistake like mixing up tv shows with reality.
@NASAvsPETE And how do you feel about them obscuring any view outside? Disagree there? Disagree just for the sake of it? Do you even know how many windows the LM had?
@NASAvsPETE The Maurer 16mm DAC weighed 1.2 kilo. Mounting and starting 3 more cameras would have added more work for the LM copilot, and obscured the limited viewing area that the LM was already burdened with. The pilots used these markedly small windows for visually acquiring the CM and to check that the ascent was proceeding as planned.
@NASAvsPETE For the ascent, not the descent. They also added 100kg of moon rock, and threw out everything they didn't need; the still cameras, rubbish, even their PLSS backpacks. And before you ask how they threw out their backpacks with the door open and vacuum inside, the suits were linked to the internal supply.
Incredibly nice footage! The large crater coming into view shortly prior engine shut-down at 07:15 min is "Bancroft" (diameter approx. 12.5 km, depth ca. 2 kilometers) located about 275 kilometers downrange (west) from Apollo 15's landing site at Hadley-Rille.
Wow, what a ride! Note how the ship "hunts" as it flies out.
Those guys sure lived the life! Scott got the best mission by far; Hadley Rille was a cherry spot to land. Must be neat to have that memory in your life....
@p2412 , I saw the video with those myth buster monkeys. What a bunch of jolly jokers they are. They could have just used there camera to take a picture of the astronaut's visor in the artificial light and gone outside and compared to the sunlight's reflection. see youtube: The Lies In Your Visors - Addendum. Another smoking gun? How about the air conditioner on the Lunar Lander? Must have been sweet to keep it cool in the 250 heat with only an aluminum skin for insulation.
There's no 250 deg heat dumbass, that's just the surface. At high noon. Vacuum doesn't have a temperature. You've been watching Sibrel's videos again, all hoax freaks sound like broken records.
@curea229 The sun coming in the windows heats up the spacecraft, that;s why the command/service module had a "passive thermal roll" on the trip out, presumably the windows were shielded and the lunar module very reflective on the outside.......(.spoken with all the authority of the 8 year old space enthusiast that still remains within me ( !) )
@dunavuk Yeah I know but that guy was complaining about 250 F heat, an obvious reference to the max daytime surface temp on the moon. Hoax freaks always confuse surface temp with atmospheric temp.
One of the advantages of the final LEM design is that the windows weren't all that big.
And your 8 year old within is speaking to both of us, brother :-)
P.S. You have to realize that a given point on the inner part of the LM shadow will recieve barely any light as long as the LM obscures the sun completely from this point (which will be the case far at least some part of the ascent). There is only directional lighting shining down on the moon, and no ambient lighting from an overcast sky, so you can't quite use the same reasoning here...
The inner part of the shadow isn't going to recieve much light because thats what a shadow is, blocked light. Overcast skys prevent deliniated shadows, some cloud won't effect shadows greatly as long as it is not over the sun. Shadows on the moon should behave pretty much the same as those on earth on a clear day. The shadow maintains too much size and definition despite changing altitude.
p2412- You seem to be having a crisis of confidence. Come on, you know it's in you, post that comment and dammit, stay with it, to hell with what may come, we have faith in you...
Atmosphere is going to have limited effects on shadows. Any shadow cast by an elevating object is going to diminish because said object is blocking less and less light from that area of land.
I believe you guys feel the moonlandings are fact and are not willing to entertain the possiblity that they may not have been real. I think the idea is too threatening to you and therefore you can't even accept that theres a chance that they didn't happen the way they said they did. true / false?
It has nothing to do with feeling threatened. I believed that the moon landings might have been faked for a short while back when I was 18, but have since grown out of it. I have simply seen enough evidence against the hoax, and no smoking guns coming from the hoax side as of yet. Now lets get this straight, you think the *entire* shadow of the LM should begin getting lighter and lighter immediately after the LM takes off (just like the helicopter)?
No, the helicopter shadow gets fainter because its getting higher and thus its blocking less light from the land where the shadow is hitting. See how the landers shadow retains such solidity despite the lander rising so many metres and thus blocking less light to that portion of land. My theory with the liftoffs and landings is that they are models, watch some of the landings and see the odd stiring of sand when they touch down, and the lack of scale in the decent.
Animation? Have you ever seen animated films from the sixties? Think of the best special effects movies that you have ever seen. Now think of the inconsistensies or visual errors that even the casual uninformed audience can see in these films.
Now think back to 1969 and the movies that were made then. Could NASA have produced such fakery that it would not only stand up to the scrutiny of a 1969 audience, but also a whole generation of engineers and scientists?
That's what I said, the helicopter shadow is becoming fainter due to atmospheric ambiance. On earth the sun does not shine exactly like a large spotlight would at night. On the moon it does (more of less). Because of this, only the outer edges of the LM's shadow becomes lighter. The inner part of the LM shadow is for the time being completely blocked of from any source of light except that reflecting from the moon's surface (which does not vary as the LM ascends), so it retains its darkness.
Ok everyone I have something good here. If you will please go to " Helicopter take off 27k georgetown KY" on youtube. Have a look at the shadow of the helicopter compared to this one, look at the effect the rising helicopter has on the shadow.
please look and come back as it is very relevant to this video.
Before we begin arguing about anomalies, you have to agree with me that this video was not faked in a film studio, much of it is filmed at an altitude of at least several kilometers spanning several hundred. If you want to believe men never went to the moon, you must admit that at least the film is from a very large moon probe. Second, I don't think anybody would go through the trouble of faking a shadow.
Shadows do not maintain that kind of distinction as an object moves away from the ground you can test this for yourself.
If you watch all the films you can see clearly that a lot of them are fake, and not even good ones. when they were made there was no technology for going back and review films in detail, they were made to be shown once on tv. Nixion was president through the landings. Watch the cbs apollo 11 footage where he calls them from the whitehouse on his standard phone! Hilarious!
I can quite clealy see the ascent module's shadow become more and more indistinct as it's ascending. I am confident that this is intrinsic to the ascent module's shadow, because right after the shadow is out of view, it shows the descent module's shadow, still quite clear as expected.
There is nothing in this video (or any others) to suggest that any of these missions were faked.
Can I assume that you were making a joke? And that you're actually not just trying to be ignorant =P?
Not quite right. Depending on the apparent size of an object in the sky when compared to the sun, the distinction of its shadow can (for a while) change very little overall as the object moves into the distance This is the case for at least part of the sequence of the LM's ascent - especially until the LM completely obscures the sun when viewed from most points on its shadow. Otherwise the loss of distinction of the shadow is difficult to see from a distance, and from the quality of the film.
Oh nice try, but the shadow is either right or wrong for all of it or not. The size of the shadow is not changing and neither is the distincting despite the "fact" that theyre changing altitude hundreds on metres. I realise theres people with a vested intrested in keeping the charade going. And some are not going to admit to what they can see in front of them, fine, but faking history is nothing to be proud of as you can see from Armstrongs tortured conscience. The truth will set you free.
Armstrong seems to be an oddball just by personality not circumstance (there are stories about his personality even before he went to the moon); the rest of the apollo astronauts seem sincerely happy that they had the chance to go to the moon, if you watch the interviews. There is really nothing wrong with the shadow, it is getting smaller and less distinct like with the helicopter. The only difference is the helicopter shadow becomes lighter due to the ambience of an overcast sky/atmosphere.
this is most exellent,really puts the vastness of the moon into some perspective,what an adventure that must have been! apollo 15 is my fave great view of the rille
The blast creter (crater)? The average conspiracy theorist doesn't even know how the lunar module works.
Couldn't you see that the lunar module base is still there on the ground? The lunar module liftoff from it, not from the ground. Google is taking pictures from it for GoogleMoon, just search.
And how much thrust do you think it's necessary to liftoff from the moon? The engines were shutdown in less then 5 minutes.
If this is a 100% true 16mm film footage (which I believe) it is one of the only realistic proof of the landing of Apollo 15 (with humans or not...) because the trajectory of filming spans more than 500km !!! No mockup can be done based on the lift off objects details and kinetics.
Or YT search: NASA's desert moon
jerichomutant 3 months ago
Or just YT search: NASA's giant "Moon Ball" user =Heythegigisup
jerichomutant 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is how they faked it. You will choose not to believe what you see, but some people who aren't emotionally invested in NEEDING America to have conquered the Moon (when they can't even go 1/5th of 1% as far today, 40 years in the future) will be objective when they watch this video. Awake children - if it doesn't frighten you....just add this part to the end of triple (w))dot) youtube (dot)com
user/HeyTheGigIsUp#p/u/23/SeQ46eqgypM
jerichomutant 3 months ago
Comment removed
jerichomutant 3 months ago
Comment removed
jerichomutant 3 months ago
@westham4everUKshine. No, it's what Kennedy said. He said it was going to be hard. That's all. Part of his famous speech, very moving. It was a bit like the FA cup final in 1975. Frank Lampard Senior dancing round the corner flag. A very moving moment.
MikeYoungBAhons 5 months ago
Lord this is cheezy, even by the 60's standards. No wonder Kubrick didn't want his name in the credits
jerichomutant 5 months ago
@jerichomutant
It looks cheesy to you BECAUSE IT'S REAL.
I'm amazed at the cool detached way the astronauts go through the checklist and make comments, this was an uncredibly dangerous part of the mission, one tiny glitch and they're dead. Idiots who say it was fake are doing these brave men wrong and should be smacked across their face until they cry.
Blahblobify 3 months ago
@Blahblobify They are in a fckn rocket and you can hear their voices? Ever been in a helicopter trying to report? YOu shouldn't even be able to hear them, and if you could, their voices should be shakey.............so..........unbelievably.............FAKE.
jerichomutant 3 months ago
@jerichomutant That's right- the LM was powered by rocket motors AND you can hear their voices. Why are you feigning surprise at this?
I stood close by to my nephews whilst they fired off some rockets on Nov 5th (admittedly powered by gunpowder this time) and we could quite easily hold a conversation as they did so.
Not all rockets are big, powerful and noisy. Especially not those designed to work in a vacuum and in 1/6th gravity. But you would know that if you had done any research.
eventcone 3 months ago
@eventcone Yes and I guess you believe that this unwelded aluminum panel piece of shizz could withstand the g-forces incurred while landing/leaving the lunar surface? And no radiation leaked in the unwelded parts? No air/heat leaked out? ...............................hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18332HR.jpg
jerichomutant 3 months ago
@jerichomutant "...unwelded aluminum panel piece of shizz ...".
I don't where you're coming from on this! What are you trying to say exactly? Can you provide some detail?
Personally, I am not familiar with the precise jointing technology used on the LM. However I would not be surprised if welding had not been used - after all it's not made from steel like an oil tanker! The most common form of joint in metallic aerospace structures is mechanical (rivets & bolts).
eventcone 3 months ago
@jerichomutant "unwelded aluminum panel piece of shizz could withstand the g-forces incurred while landing/leaving the lunar surface? And no radiation leaked in the unwelded parts? No air/heat leaked out?".
I see you're talking about the buckled LM Equipment Bay panels.
This bay is not pressurised, it is not part of the crew cabin. So air and heat CANNOT leak in, OR out. The panels serve only to shield the equipment from sunlight.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for you not to have......
eventcone 3 months ago
@jerichomutant .......researched this BEFORE letting fly with a volley of ridiculous and unfounded accusations.
As I asked before, why have YOU not researched the official history of Apollo? After all, it's the VERY LEAST you can do if you're going to accuse so many people of multi-billion dollar fraud, fakery and deception (and who knows maybe, like some conspiracy theorists, of murder and coercion).
eventcone 3 months ago
@eventcone One look at that pic, a craptastic aluminum chickencoop sinks the entire Apollo HOAX. I did research it, that's how I know it was FAKE. It's hard to debate on Youboob cuz they make it hard to insert links to pics & such...stupid site. But, go on YT & watch the ENTIRE doc called: Was it Only a Paper Moon? If you don't then you are a hypocrite for accusing me of 'not' researching things. You see, I BELIEVED they landed on the Moon once. I really did..before logic got the best of me.
jerichomutant 3 months ago
Respond to this video... You are comparing the rockets you let off in your backyard with the SaturnV? Hahahaha. Good call.
jerichomutant 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jerichomutant "Respond to this video... You are comparing the rockets you let off in your backyard with the SaturnV? Hahahaha. Good call".
I've got news for you kid: This video ain't the Saturn V.
There's a clue for you there - can you find it?
eventcone 3 months ago
@jerichomutant
They are in sealed spacesuits talking on a radio and surrounded by a vacuum toy stupid shit fuck. try to think before saying something next time idiot.
Blahblobify 3 months ago
@Blahblobify There was no time delay during the conversations between Houston and the astroNOTs. There should at least be a 2.5 s time delay seeing as it taks more than a full second for light from the Moon to travel to the Earth each night, and a conversation is two way - meaning it would take twice as long. There is rarely a time delay..........physically impossible, unless they filmed it on earth in the same damn room.
jerichomutant 3 months ago
@jerichomutant
"No time delay" OMGWTFBBQ......you do know that if you record the conversation at ONE END, like in Houston, that when they answer right away it's because the delay in transmission has already occured, right, kweer?
Like if they sent a message from FUCKING PLUTO and they answered immediately it'd be because the delay had already taken place at their end, right?
RIGHT?
Stupid fuck shit.
Blahblobify 3 months ago
@Blahblobify Um, the conversation is 2-way. If you have watched A LOT of the transmissions, Houston asks a question, & the NOTs answer right away, no delay. Then the NOTs say something & NASA responds, right away, no delay. It is not just on Houston's end, but both ways. Watch any live broadcast today - with SATELLITE technology, 40 years in the future -when Larry King interviews someone in NY, there is an awkward time delay, yet in 1969 with rotary tech, no delay...from the moooooooooon?
jerichomutant 3 months ago
@jerichomutant "Houston asks a question, & the NOTs answer right away, no delay".
No, they do not. Find one piece of conversation where that is conclusive. You won't.
As for the other way: There is no delay to questions asked by the astronauts because Houston hears the question at the same time that it is recorded.
You people seem to have a psychological need to believe this stuff. So much so that your judgement is shot to pieces. Your are blinded by your own prejudice.
eventcone 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jerichomutant "Lord this is cheezy, even by the 60's standards. No wonder Kubrick didn't want his name in the credits".
That film purporting to show that Kubrick was involved in faking the moonlandings was a hoax, a piss-take aimed right at you CT's. Still got the fish hook in your mouth?
Ever seen Kubrick's attempt at showing men on the moon? Despite only being 2 hours or so long it's filled with errors.
The dozens of hours of Apollo footage contains no such errors. Put it together..
eventcone 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey Apollo fans. Dig this!
watch?v=tLZTmG8z9rw
Synthetrix 1 year ago
It was a huge challenge. When Kenedy said: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade... not because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard." He wasn't joking. Much of the technology had still to be invented. New materials had to be created. Electronics were still in their infancy. And, the complex infrastructure surrounding the programme had to be devised and put in place. It was an entirely new sphere of human endeavour.
MikeYoungBAhons 1 year ago
@1965christian You are right, things were not too reliable back in those days. Read any couple of books about the Apollo programme - maybe one from the standpoint of the flight controllers and one which is an astronauts account - and you'll see that there were 'glitches' and unknowns around every corner. Saying that, the Lunar Module was the most reliable component of the system. It always did it's job and on one occasion saved the lives of the crew.
MikeYoungBAhons 1 year ago
@MikeYoungBAhons Think you have to remember how much of a challenge this was, how the technology was being stretched. Also of course, the circumstances: to some I'm sure the Moon race was a cold war "battle" that had to be won. If we were to return to the moon today we just would not take the same risks. The Apollo flights were "test flights", whereas today I imagine we would want a level of reliability consistent with an operational regime, as Nasa tried to achieve with the shuttle?
eventcone 1 year ago
@MikeYoungBAhons Hahaha, the Lunar Module? You mean this unwelded piece of crap a special ed 4th grader would be embarrassed to call his science project? ,,,,, hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18332HR.jpg
jerichomutant 3 months ago
The KAGUYA spacecraft is in orbit around the moon. The laws of physics are controlling it's motion which makes for a very smooth ride. It doesn't have to manoeuvre about in space so there is no thruster activity. A fully powered Lunar Module Ascending from the moon's surface to a rendezvous in orbit is quite a different beast. It needs a lot of guidance and control. The rocking motion seen in the Apollo 15 ascent film is a result of the way the guidance and control systems work. (see previous e
MikeYoungBAhons 1 year ago
@MikeYoungBAhons Well I can live with that. Thus, assuming that this is true, then this oscillating and discontinuous movement of Apollo in vacuum gives a clear idea how NOT-good and unreliable was the control system at that time. This is because that unlinear movement of Apollo (up and down, left right, that you can see here) can only be caused by the continuous activation of the small directional rockets located on Apollo side, perhaps manually by astronauts or by a 'computer'..
1965christian 1 year ago
Hey eventcone - the next thing they'll be telling us is that Star Trek was faked and filmed in a studio!! I dunno about you but where I live on the the planet it's nearly midnight and I'm not just tired because I've had a hard day at work but tired because every time I look at anything Apollo on You Tube there are always tedious hoaxsters comments to wade through before you come across someone (like yourself) who knows what they are talking about. Groan!
MikeYoungBAhons 1 year ago
Comment removed
eventcone 1 year ago
@MikeYoungBAhons Star Trek was faked?!! Nooooooooo - Say it isn't true!! :-)
Actually, if you hate that stuff you might want to stay away from
youtube.com/watch?v=cOdzhQS_MMw&NR=1&feature=fvwp
it's like a war scene in there! Hoax Cult versus "Moon Defenders" (as the hoaxers call "us", meant as a derogatory term of course!.
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone It was the camera' s shaking.
vise357 8 months ago
check KAGUYA mission videos.... in this video the way the module seems moving and oscillating seem totaly wrong....
1965christian 1 year ago
@1965christian Now no offence Christian, but would you care to tell us what academic and professional credentials or experience you have that would lend weight to your assertion that "the way the module seems moving and oscillating seems totally wrong".
I mean no disrespect here: If you have relevant knowledge then fair enough, but if you don't, at least consider how easy it is to misjudge these things. Personally I see nothing "wrong" in the motion, given how the craft was controlled.
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone No, I am not offended. We are here to talk. I am not making conferences. Ok, I am an engineeer, but this doesn't mean anything and I think both you and me are not rocket scientists. I am afraid I still keep my opinion on my observation.. KAGUYA moves linearly and progressively, Apollo doesn't (as it appears to me here). This is not a scientific analyses, but just my simple and evident observation..... why this difference? what does that mean? I don't know. I don't care.
1965christian 1 year ago
@1965christian Well I guess that's reasonable. You're basically saying "Hey, that looks wierd!".
But then, we all say that from time to time about the most ordinary and everyday things, like things our computers do, or our cars etc. It doesn't mean that something outlandish has caused it, or that someone is practicing some kind of deception upon us (unless some kind of Trojan program infecting our PC qualifies on that score!). But really, the explanation is mundane. So too with Apollo. :-)
eventcone 1 year ago
The Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio. Here's a link to some of the hoax evidence.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
(check link for gaps)
FatFreddy88 1 year ago
@FatFreddy88 The best documentary is on Youtoob & it is called: "Was it Only a Paper Moon?" For all the diehard believers, I just ask that you watch the documentary with open eyes and heart. If you don't want to know the truth, you will choose to make up your mind before you watch it, or choose not to watch it. I would have you question why you are so reticent to not even watch the documentary, question what prevents you from even trying to learn as much about the Moon Landings as you can?
jerichomutant 3 months ago
@jerichomutant "I would have you question why you are so reticent to.........watch the documentary, question what prevents you from even trying to learn as much about the Moon Landings as you can?"
I have wasted time on quite a few such documentaries. They are laced with absurd and pathetic claims that exhibit a woeful ignorance of science & technology.
Let me turn your point on you: What prevents YOU from trying to learn about the history of Apollo and how the moonlandings were achieved?
eventcone 3 months ago
@jerichomutant
I've watched "Was it Only a Paper Moon?" I thought it provided some good evidence that the missions were faked. You seem to be a bit confused about my position. I think Apollo was a hoax. Here's a link to a thread I started on that.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
FatFreddy88 2 months ago
@FatFreddy88
There is no "good evidence" that the Apollo missions were faked. The charlatans that produce those videos don't believe it themselves, they are just making a buck off of gullible fools.
Blahblobify 1 week ago
...so audacious that to some people it was beyond belief.
MikeYoungBAhons 1 year ago
@MikeYoungBAhons Yep - like claiming the Pyramids must have been built by aliens.
eventcone 1 year ago
Hi eventcone
Landing a man on the moon and returning him to Earth safely is the greatest human achievement of modern times. It involved hundreds of thousands of people working for thousands of companies. It involved the coming together of countless technologies and disciplines. It may even have provided such an outlet for the fervent competition between the superpowers that it, quite remarkably, took the place of war. In history conspiracy theories will be viewed as reactions to something so au
MikeYoungBAhons 1 year ago
Yeah...nobody expected the rocking motion to happen so it was never written into any flight simulation programmes. Although it was known about through flight testing it came as a surprise to some LM Pilots.
MikeYoungBAhons 1 year ago
Hey, eventcone, going back to your original point, about the rocking motion of the ascent stage. Well you are absolutely right about the cause. The on-board computer used the RCS thrusters to keep the spacecraft in the correct attitude for orbital insertion. Because of the way that the computer managed the RCS system, one motor would fire and then the opposing motor would compensate. This caused the gentle rocking motion seen in the film. I read about this a while ago and nobody expected it to
MikeYoungBAhons 1 year ago
@MikeYoungBAhons Hi Mike. Interesting isn't it? I would think that the extent of the rocking motion (amplitude, frequency) would be a function of the whole system, from the RCS thrust levels and repsonsiveness, to the LEM's moment of inertia about the relevant rotation axis.
Interesting how every little detail of Apollo is latched onto by the uninformed or ignorant and shoe-horned into some hoax theory. They don't want an explanation. They just want a theory to serve their own little agenda.
eventcone 1 year ago
you worthless faggots,questioning something of this magnitude like its a film set,get real and grow up,your probably mommys little angels who go on media studies but really will face a life of dole when your little baby classes are over.these fellas had brains in there heads unlike you silky boys,and accomplished this what you see.do you really think they could build a set of hundreds of square miles and miles in height??!,patrick moore,stephen hawking both liars and your right,wow your clever!
guitarnashelter 1 year ago
Nasa is a crock of shit
Nasa Fakes Everything
2nasafakedit 1 year ago
wow just look at those two towers from 3:18 to 3:35 and this...thing from 7:16 to 7:32 of course it's also a tower? right?
luksor13 1 year ago
after about 0:40 it becomes evident that the LEM dingle dangles on its way up! the camera clearly shows it.
now why would a rocket driven vehicle dingle dangle!? it shouldn't, cause it would mess with the trajectory!
all rockets fly in a straight line, yes?! or, if they curve, they remain true to that new path. they dont curve back!
what dingles and dangles?! -things that are suspended!
check all LEM ascent videos. u see the same thing happening!
CT2507 1 year ago
@CT2507 The ascent stage engine didn't gimbal to control direction. This control was provided by the RCS thrusters. What you are seeing is the system "hunting" either side of the intended trajectory - it actually keeps it on course by making a series of corrections. Anyone who knows anything about Control Systems will know this and find nothing strange about it. As for "all rockets fly in a straight line" - there's no such thing. Rockets and everything else fly in a series of curves.
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone bullshit. it dingles cause it was suspended by a wire.
CT2507 1 year ago
@CT2507 What an impressive argument! You have an amazing grasp of the technical issues here.
That's some wire - it lifts the Ascent Stage thousands of feet above the surface!
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone it lifts only the LEM... try and imagine that. its not so hard. the stage doesn't need to move. only the LEM..seee... :)
use a helicopter and then fly straight up. thats what helicopters are good at. then the whole scene will dangle a bit due to the wire. but that's al right. u can always explain it away with all kinds of correction/compensation thrusters theories.
CT2507 1 year ago
@CT2507 So the camera shot through the LEM window was actually taken through the window of a "LEM" suspended by wire from a helicopter as the latter climbed through thousands of feet above a "filmset"?
1. Your "filmset" covers thousands of square miles.
2. The LEM shadow doesn't "dingle dangle". There's no shadow from the alleged wire or helicopter, and the helicopter disturbes no dust.
But that's OK. You can always explain it away with ever more convoluted conspiracy theories.
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone why would u expect the helicopter to disturb the dust if it is already like a 100 feet or more above the LEM when it starts!? try and think before u answer.
the film-set could easily be produced in an area like area 51. its just sand, rocks and hills. and made to cover several miles. thousands of miles is not necessary. that's an exaggeration. something u do a lot i think.
and from that angle u of course wouldn't see the shadow of the LEM dingle dangle. haha... what a (cont)
CT2507 1 year ago
@CT2507 (cont)
silly argument that is. it should be enough that the LEM dangles. why bring in the shadow as proof??
what are u actualy trying to say with that? that if u cannot see the shadow dangle (from that angle) that means that the entire LEM ISNT dangling!?
think again!
CT2507 1 year ago
@eventcone also, the helicopter shadow and wire are the easiest things to edit out. just as they have edited out the wires which the astronauts are hanging from during all their bunny-jumping across the lunar surface.
CT2507 1 year ago
@CT2507 Yep - ever more convoluted.
What exactly IS a dingle dangle? Is it a swing? That LEM is going to swing a lot on your 100 foot wire, yet the shadow follows a ramrod straight path. Unless your swing is in the plane of the camera angle - a REMARKABLE coincidence and a stroke of luck for the film-maker! But even then you'd certainly see some effect in the shadow. Or is it an oscillation in pitch only? Not possible on a wire - it would transfer energy into a swing. Try it with a pendulum.
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone it can swing a lot and it can swing a little. depending on the pull.
the shadow is to far away for u to notice the swings that are visible from the window. u cant use that as an argument. forget the shadow.
CT2507 1 year ago
@CT2507 Yes, that's right. The entire LEM isn't dangling. It's moving through a small angle in pitch (small enough not to be apparent in the LEM shadow, as a swing would) each time the RCS corrects for attitude. Listen to the dialogue at 3.30: one of the crew makes a direct reference to the repeated firing of the RCS jets.
How did they accomplish the "Pitch-Over" manoeuvre on the end of that wire? They need some sort of rig - again not visible in the shadow.
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone dont talk of what the shadow shows. all that can be edited out.
CT2507 1 year ago
@CT2507 Why would they even bother filming this? Why set themselves ANOTHER challenge? Why 7 attempted landings at all? They got away with it once - why dramatically increase the chances of exposure by faking again, and again, and again etc. Answer: they filmed it because it was easy, because it was real.
Didn't anyone tell you to always go for the simplest explanation, or that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone to make it that more believable.
faking it was easy. look at how flimsy the LEM was build..haha. who the hell goes to the uncertain environement of another world in such a crappy build shit-pot!? look at how the outside plates are bulging in some places and kept in place with golden ducktape!! WTF!!
weren't they afraid that those black plates would come off during flight or during a micro meteorite shower?!
i'd be fucking afraid if it was me going to the moon for the first time!
CT2507 1 year ago
@CT2507 I'm sorry you feel that way. You have given in to prejudice, and see what you WANT to see.
They filmed this to make the landings more believable? That just won't wash - it was already accepted as fact 4 missions previously. If Apollo 11 was faked as you claim they were certainly smart enough to know that they should quit while they were ahead!
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone u have given in to the media brain wash machine. i have given in to study and research. hours and hours of looking at films photos and listening to both sides of the debate. and i now see what is there!
u know that the bigger a lie is the more people will accept it as truth. going only once and then never again, would have been real stupid. it would have looked much more suspicious, and attract a lot of unwanted curiosity.
CT2507 1 year ago
@CT2507 Looked more suspicious? Hardly. People were asking: "Why do we keep going back?" by the time of Apollo 13, yet NASA had plans for Apollo 20.
The bigger a lie is? How about "the more outrageous a conspiracy theory is (& based on lies), the more people will buy into it"?
U say you've devoted hours to study and research and listened to both sides. Yet your arguments all appear to be based on pure intuition and/or common sense (never reliable) rather than specific scientific knowledge.
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone because at the end of the day u can argue all points of view in both directions. that's why i don't indulge in lengthy debates anymore.
for me its simple.
i see the astronauts movements are hindered by wires. only people hanging from wires will move like that.
i believe the technology in the 60'ies was not enough to bring people to and back from the moon.
i see photos of the same backdrops reused on the lunar surface.
i know the US elite lies.
i draw the most sane conclusion.
CT2507 1 year ago
@CT2507 Hi CT.
You're right, we could argue this both ways for a long time (and this is not the forum for that).
Governments DO lie. My opinion is they lie about SOME things, not EVERYthing (not even MOST things?). As for what you see in Apollo films: there are explanations for them all that don't require a conspiracy theory.
I think most of the media are cynical money makers and see stories (true, distorted of just plain untrue) as product. Not ALL though.
eventcone 1 year ago
@CT2507 My friend, when you display the trait of brushing aside rational argument because it challenges your chosen beliefs, then you ARE prejudiced. Might I respectfully suggest that you consider a more "middle ground" position, where you remain receptive to both sides of the argument?
You might reasonably say that I should try my own medicine? Well I do. But I can only say that I know enough to see through too many of the hoax proponents' claims as nonsense, or in some cases, outright lies.
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone sure i could choose a more diplomatic position and say: i don't really know, i wasn't there.
but at the same time i got to consider a very aggressive and pushy american media machine that is trying to sell me all kinds of ideas. and to them i say: i just don't buy it!
u know too much u say to see hoax claims as nonsense. i don't see it as a matter of knowledge, but a choice of faith. what u have chosen to believe u defend.
CT2507 1 year ago
@CT2507 I'm interested in what you say about FAITH......
I don't think such matters should be decided by gut feelings, or by what you call faith. You have to use your intellect, education, and try to be as informed as possible (using reputable sources, both news media & academic).
However, I DO think that there has been a LOSS OF FAITH in the establishment on your part and this has lead you to where you are now. In some ways this is understandable.
Best wishes for the New Year :-)
eventcone 1 year ago
@CT2507 Yes you would be afraid. The astronauts were too. They were courageous men who accepted the risks of the Test Flight business. Every Mercury, Gemini and Apollo mission was a test flight, and the damage to the equipment bay plates (not part of the LEM primary structure) is just the kind of problem that sometimes occurs on Test Flights. BTW, don't confuse the gold coloured Mylar film with structure. It's only purpose is to reflect sunlight to prevent the Descent Stage from overheating.
eventcone 1 year ago
@CT2507 You say "faking it was easy" and then laugh at the LEM. If it's so obviously wrong, faking it would not have been "easy"! They went to all that trouble and YOU saw right through it? You're living proof of my assertion that they should have quit while ahead!
It's a lot easier to design a vehicle structure to operate in an airless, 1/6th gravity environment than one to operate here on earth. I think you've watched too many Sci-Fi movies that show spaceships built like Navy Destroyers.
eventcone 1 year ago
@CT2507 The claims of moon landing fakery are not only extraordinary (like those of other conspiracy theories), they're also outlandish and outrageous. You therefore need some equally outrageous evidence. But you have none worthy of the name, only a list of questions that you cannot answer due to your own ignorance (no offense intended).
My friend, why not open your mind and look for those answers somewhere OTHER THAN with the conspiracy theorists?
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone :)
well i think u are extraordinary, outlandish and outragerous!
when i look at those astronoust bunny jumping across the lunar surface i see idiots in stupid suits who move very awkwardly because their movments are hindered by wires! i get a clear sense that they are suspended and cant move freely. if u cant feel, sense and observe that then i feel sory for u.
all your knowledge has made u blind.
CT2507 1 year ago
Comment removed
dunavbalkan 1 year ago
What's especially striking about this particular film is that at the moment of pitch over (when the descent stage comes into view) the pattern of various features on the surface, from the equipment left behind by the astronauts to the various footprint trails, lunar rover tracks and lunar craters, can be clearly seen in the latest LRO images of the site (captured nearly 40 years later).
eventcone 1 year ago
Wow, all the way from Hadley to Lunar orbit. A spectacular lift-off and immediate pitch-over. When Hadley Rille becomes visible the ascent stage yaws toward the north to follow it. Leaving the rille behind, Scott and Irwin cross relatively flat Palus Putredinis and fly just south of the large ghost crater, Spurr. Increasing in altitude and velocity, they pass the southern rim of the gigantic impact feature, Archimedes. The big crater visible just before engine shut-down is 2km deep Bancroft.
MikeYoungBAhons 1 year ago
How can anyone see this and the LRO photos' and not be convinced?
Man this beautiful! Thanks for the post.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE
Just to inform you, the correct answer to the, as you say, "dumb" question of how many windows there are in the LM, is actually three! Forgot about the rendezvous window I guess. Pretty much sums it all up about your statements here.
1CAG 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE your obsessed by cameras by the sound of it.live rover tv and 16mm cameras.not frikkin rocket science! its obvious that for the research this was all that was required,it was not meant to be a movie,just geological exploration of the lunar surface,ppl seeing it on tv was a privlage
feetylicious 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE ,easy rly..pete loses lol mighty apollo wins!
feetylicious 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE Well no, there were two 16mm DAC cameras, one in the LM, one in the CM. You can tell because there are videos of the docking approach from both angles.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE Really? How many cameras on the first shuttle flight? I guess because there were no cameras on that, it was fake too!
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE Please try to get your references correct. It was a 16mm film camera inside, and a video telemetry feed from the rover outside. You know this is true, why are you arguing this point? We can view each feed right here on youtube.
Apollo 15, 16 and 17 each had a video feed of the ascent module departing. Are you saying this did not happen?
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE Correction; two cameras - the 16mm DAC inside, the video feed outside.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE I guess this means you didn't find any systems that were redundant, as you claimed.
Cry all you like about the lack of film cameras mounted outside the LM, that would have required another EVA during docking to retrieve. It's never going to prove squat.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE I see, so you wanted four cameras filming out of two windows.
What sections or systems of the LM were multiply redundant?
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE You can whine about wanting more cameras until the cows come home, but it's not really proving any points. You still haven't figured out how many windows the LM had or what size. You're making crazy demands again with no idea of the conditions. Mayeb you should do some fact-checking first, or you'll make a mistake like mixing up tv shows with reality.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE And how do you feel about them obscuring any view outside? Disagree there? Disagree just for the sake of it? Do you even know how many windows the LM had?
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@krisdevalle
"Disagree just for the sake of it?"
Yes, probably.
"Do you even know how many windows the LM had?"
Windows? Or MS-DOS?
Rob260259 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE The Maurer 16mm DAC weighed 1.2 kilo. Mounting and starting 3 more cameras would have added more work for the LM copilot, and obscured the limited viewing area that the LM was already burdened with. The pilots used these markedly small windows for visually acquiring the CM and to check that the ascent was proceeding as planned.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE For the ascent, not the descent. They also added 100kg of moon rock, and threw out everything they didn't need; the still cameras, rubbish, even their PLSS backpacks. And before you ask how they threw out their backpacks with the door open and vacuum inside, the suits were linked to the internal supply.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@NASAvsPETE Why didn't they have 4 cameras? Weight constraints. Use your head.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
Incredibly nice footage! The large crater coming into view shortly prior engine shut-down at 07:15 min is "Bancroft" (diameter approx. 12.5 km, depth ca. 2 kilometers) located about 275 kilometers downrange (west) from Apollo 15's landing site at Hadley-Rille.
1CAG 1 year ago
@1CAG Hi. Thanks for the info but how do you know that it's Bancroft crater
pashuku 1 year ago
@pashuku
Landmark tracking with the help of Google Moon.
1CAG 1 year ago
Thanks for the footage; I haven't seen anything like it before. Very nice...
It saddens me that so many people refuse to believe it happened. Well...not really. Why feel sad for idiots? It's their own damn fault.
ScottZirpolo 1 year ago
Wow, what a ride! Note how the ship "hunts" as it flies out.
Those guys sure lived the life! Scott got the best mission by far; Hadley Rille was a cherry spot to land. Must be neat to have that memory in your life....
64davrecon 2 years ago
@p2412 , I saw the video with those myth buster monkeys. What a bunch of jolly jokers they are. They could have just used there camera to take a picture of the astronaut's visor in the artificial light and gone outside and compared to the sunlight's reflection. see youtube: The Lies In Your Visors - Addendum. Another smoking gun? How about the air conditioner on the Lunar Lander? Must have been sweet to keep it cool in the 250 heat with only an aluminum skin for insulation.
thermodynamicsishard 2 years ago
There's no 250 deg heat dumbass, that's just the surface. At high noon. Vacuum doesn't have a temperature. You've been watching Sibrel's videos again, all hoax freaks sound like broken records.
curea229 2 years ago
@curea229 The sun coming in the windows heats up the spacecraft, that;s why the command/service module had a "passive thermal roll" on the trip out, presumably the windows were shielded and the lunar module very reflective on the outside.......(.spoken with all the authority of the 8 year old space enthusiast that still remains within me ( !) )
dunavuk 1 year ago
@dunavuk Yeah I know but that guy was complaining about 250 F heat, an obvious reference to the max daytime surface temp on the moon. Hoax freaks always confuse surface temp with atmospheric temp.
One of the advantages of the final LEM design is that the windows weren't all that big.
And your 8 year old within is speaking to both of us, brother :-)
curea229 1 year ago
@thermodynamicsishard haha
jackjohnbob 1 year ago
P.S. You have to realize that a given point on the inner part of the LM shadow will recieve barely any light as long as the LM obscures the sun completely from this point (which will be the case far at least some part of the ascent). There is only directional lighting shining down on the moon, and no ambient lighting from an overcast sky, so you can't quite use the same reasoning here...
p2412 2 years ago
The inner part of the shadow isn't going to recieve much light because thats what a shadow is, blocked light. Overcast skys prevent deliniated shadows, some cloud won't effect shadows greatly as long as it is not over the sun. Shadows on the moon should behave pretty much the same as those on earth on a clear day. The shadow maintains too much size and definition despite changing altitude.
you2begin 2 years ago
p2412- You seem to be having a crisis of confidence. Come on, you know it's in you, post that comment and dammit, stay with it, to hell with what may come, we have faith in you...
you2begin 2 years ago
Lol, youtube wasn't letting me post my comment, so I kept trying, and then it all came like a flood.
p2412 2 years ago
test
p2412 2 years ago
Atmosphere is going to have limited effects on shadows. Any shadow cast by an elevating object is going to diminish because said object is blocking less and less light from that area of land.
I believe you guys feel the moonlandings are fact and are not willing to entertain the possiblity that they may not have been real. I think the idea is too threatening to you and therefore you can't even accept that theres a chance that they didn't happen the way they said they did. true / false?
you2begin 2 years ago
Comment removed
p2412 2 years ago
test
p2412 2 years ago
It has nothing to do with feeling threatened. I believed that the moon landings might have been faked for a short while back when I was 18, but have since grown out of it. I have simply seen enough evidence against the hoax, and no smoking guns coming from the hoax side as of yet. Now lets get this straight, you think the *entire* shadow of the LM should begin getting lighter and lighter immediately after the LM takes off (just like the helicopter)?
p2412 2 years ago
Comment removed
p2412 2 years ago
No, the helicopter shadow gets fainter because its getting higher and thus its blocking less light from the land where the shadow is hitting. See how the landers shadow retains such solidity despite the lander rising so many metres and thus blocking less light to that portion of land. My theory with the liftoffs and landings is that they are models, watch some of the landings and see the odd stiring of sand when they touch down, and the lack of scale in the decent.
you2begin 2 years ago
U2, they landed on the Moon. The MOON. A very strange 'world'. With strange behavior of phenomenons we know from our earthy physics.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Animation? Have you ever seen animated films from the sixties? Think of the best special effects movies that you have ever seen. Now think of the inconsistensies or visual errors that even the casual uninformed audience can see in these films.
Now think back to 1969 and the movies that were made then. Could NASA have produced such fakery that it would not only stand up to the scrutiny of a 1969 audience, but also a whole generation of engineers and scientists?
Rob260259 2 years ago
That's what I said, the helicopter shadow is becoming fainter due to atmospheric ambiance. On earth the sun does not shine exactly like a large spotlight would at night. On the moon it does (more of less). Because of this, only the outer edges of the LM's shadow becomes lighter. The inner part of the LM shadow is for the time being completely blocked of from any source of light except that reflecting from the moon's surface (which does not vary as the LM ascends), so it retains its darkness.
p2412 2 years ago
Ok everyone I have something good here. If you will please go to " Helicopter take off 27k georgetown KY" on youtube. Have a look at the shadow of the helicopter compared to this one, look at the effect the rising helicopter has on the shadow.
please look and come back as it is very relevant to this video.
you2begin 2 years ago
Before we begin arguing about anomalies, you have to agree with me that this video was not faked in a film studio, much of it is filmed at an altitude of at least several kilometers spanning several hundred. If you want to believe men never went to the moon, you must admit that at least the film is from a very large moon probe. Second, I don't think anybody would go through the trouble of faking a shadow.
p2412 2 years ago
You don't know anything about me, you're not psychic, you are however a damned fool. Good day to you sir!
you2begin 2 years ago
Boy75402- You make a garbled gibberish based responce and then call me ignorant! Love it , great satire, youre only getting better with time.
you2begin 2 years ago
"garbled gibberish based responce" I'll bet you that anyone else understood it.
Only reason you didn't is because you refuse to. You are programmed not to accept any evidence to suggest you are wrong.
You'd still be claiming it was faked if were taken along for the ride, and standing on the Lunar surface itself.
Boy75402 2 years ago
1800 MOON love it!
you2begin 2 years ago
Shadows do not maintain that kind of distinction as an object moves away from the ground you can test this for yourself.
If you watch all the films you can see clearly that a lot of them are fake, and not even good ones. when they were made there was no technology for going back and review films in detail, they were made to be shown once on tv. Nixion was president through the landings. Watch the cbs apollo 11 footage where he calls them from the whitehouse on his standard phone! Hilarious!
you2begin 2 years ago
its not like he dialed 1800 MOON. he called nasa and nasa uplinked to the astronauts via radio
kooldog98 2 years ago
You would think that would have been obvious... but yeah some people need that explained to them =|
Boy75402 2 years ago
@you2begin,
I can quite clealy see the ascent module's shadow become more and more indistinct as it's ascending. I am confident that this is intrinsic to the ascent module's shadow, because right after the shadow is out of view, it shows the descent module's shadow, still quite clear as expected.
There is nothing in this video (or any others) to suggest that any of these missions were faked.
Can I assume that you were making a joke? And that you're actually not just trying to be ignorant =P?
Boy75402 2 years ago
Not quite right. Depending on the apparent size of an object in the sky when compared to the sun, the distinction of its shadow can (for a while) change very little overall as the object moves into the distance This is the case for at least part of the sequence of the LM's ascent - especially until the LM completely obscures the sun when viewed from most points on its shadow. Otherwise the loss of distinction of the shadow is difficult to see from a distance, and from the quality of the film.
p2412 2 years ago
Oh nice try, but the shadow is either right or wrong for all of it or not. The size of the shadow is not changing and neither is the distincting despite the "fact" that theyre changing altitude hundreds on metres. I realise theres people with a vested intrested in keeping the charade going. And some are not going to admit to what they can see in front of them, fine, but faking history is nothing to be proud of as you can see from Armstrongs tortured conscience. The truth will set you free.
you2begin 2 years ago
Armstrong seems to be an oddball just by personality not circumstance (there are stories about his personality even before he went to the moon); the rest of the apollo astronauts seem sincerely happy that they had the chance to go to the moon, if you watch the interviews. There is really nothing wrong with the shadow, it is getting smaller and less distinct like with the helicopter. The only difference is the helicopter shadow becomes lighter due to the ambience of an overcast sky/atmosphere.
p2412 2 years ago
this is most exellent,really puts the vastness of the moon into some perspective,what an adventure that must have been! apollo 15 is my fave great view of the rille
cripplewoox 2 years ago
Well, I see no hoax here.
Looks like we did it.
vecmath 2 years ago
Ask the average conspiracy theorist, and he'll tell you that you aren't seeing the "obvious".
Uhh 1f th3y w3r on teh m00n & th3y lift3d off then w3r iz t3h bl4s7 cr3t3r????
F4K3!! NASA HAX!
Boy75402 2 years ago
The blast creter (crater)? The average conspiracy theorist doesn't even know how the lunar module works.
Couldn't you see that the lunar module base is still there on the ground? The lunar module liftoff from it, not from the ground. Google is taking pictures from it for GoogleMoon, just search.
And how much thrust do you think it's necessary to liftoff from the moon? The engines were shutdown in less then 5 minutes.
Read, search, know... and you will feel better ;)
vecmath 2 years ago
Vecmath, yes, I know how the lunar lander works, and that there are LRO images of it, and that not a lot of thrust is needed to get off the moon.
I was mocking the conspiracy theorists.
Boy75402 2 years ago
Sorry about that.
I couldn't see you were mocking them.
vecmath1 2 years ago
Haha quite alright =)
Boy75402 2 years ago
If this is a 100% true 16mm film footage (which I believe) it is one of the only realistic proof of the landing of Apollo 15 (with humans or not...) because the trajectory of filming spans more than 500km !!! No mockup can be done based on the lift off objects details and kinetics.
globenavigator 2 years ago
Comment removed
globenavigator 2 years ago
WOW, very cool! I like how he turned the music off after about 10 seconds, hahah
jaraha 3 years ago
Can't blame him.
"Omg shut that off!!!"
Boy75402 2 years ago