@Altimadark guess what, their were no independant observers. congress passed a FCC law forbiding that. while you could snoop on a radio you were forbidden to record or speak about it. you would already know about that if you gave a shit in the first place.Happy 1970 to you to ass hole
I want to know how in the world some one from earth 250K away operated the camera and recorded the famous LM leaving the moon on their way to earth in 1969 if the technology wasn't there yet?
It's always fascinated me how scientists repeatedly explain how it was entirely possible for us to have gone to the moon... and how people without any scientific background ask incredulous questions which would be easily asked if they'd bothered to look up the answer instead of make an ass out of themselves.
I still say some of the photos were faked for PR, but we did go to the moon.
If we "went to the moon" why haven't we gone back? Why has only America been? why haven't they started building a base there?
Answer this.. If the technology was so great 40 years that it took people to the moon, why... WHY haven't we progressed further? they are trying to find out if there was water on the moon, we'll shit, instead of taking satellite photos why can't they send an other person or team to take samples? or why didn't they take any from the initial landing?
It's not only technology Raeaic. Moreover it is about budget. The Moonlandings were as much achievement of a political goal during the cold war as anything else; at least so far, no substitute motive has been compelling enough to get the US to return, or for someone else to go. If there are major technological developments that bring down the cost of spaceflight dramatically things could change, but such things have been predicted for a long time, and so far at least, they haven't been realized.
@redbeast2 funny how the spend a shit load of money to send someone there to plant a flag, but wont do it for scientific research. and don't give me this shit about budget. do you know how many billions of dollars every year america's government gives to NASA? money is not an issue.
I'm afraid your understanding of history, what robots can do versus what humans can do, and the expense associated with a life support system on a spacecraft is leading you to form incorrect and quite hilarious conclusions.
@Altimadark How would you expect in 1970s Russians thell to the west, that moon landing was fake? All information sources controled by American propaganda, even today and it would be imposible at that time.
Apolo 11 rocket was lonched, it go behind the moon, maybe even some robots druped on the moon, but no human waked there, A
The Moon, with no atmosphere, is more dangerous than the surface of Mars. space radiation particles. (These particles are different from electromagnetic radiation, such as X-rays, visible light or the ultraviolet (UV) rays that cause skin cancer.)
So tell me how they went to the moon with all the radation in space how they survived and why have we not gone back in 40 years. BECAUSE MAN HAS NEVER GONE TO THE MOON.
Kaminski and Baysinger are frauds their data was not realy indepndent. This was proven decades ago.
Also the "indepndent data" was created by an affiliate of NASA. Only NASA supposedly had the technology to track an object that size beyond the van allen belts. The launch of the Saturn 5 was tracked up to 200 miles only.
They like yourself are making dishonest statments. You have not nor cannot prove to me that the Apollo Moon Mission were anything more than a media generated hoax.
Sorry, but you're simply wrong. Many independent astronomers saw the Apollo missions on their way to the moon. I myself saw Apollo 15 (probably its S-IVB) shortly after translunar injection, right where it was supposed to be, slowly moving against the star background.
Even some radio hams heard the Apollo radio signals themselves. Receiving carrier and voice wasn't that hard; only the video required a large dish.
Even if I could take you there, you'd still find a way to rationalize it away.
I don't know what world you live in but in the real world, We landed on the moon and Onions and Potatoes are two DIFFERENT things. Do you think if you plugged your potato clock and your onion mp3 into your brain it might start to work? Try it, get back to me.
This is a satire or parody of the fabled Moon mission evidence MythBusters "proved". This is a light hearted potpourri of critique. No I do not believ they went to the Moon.
the information about the video is questionable at best due to that it looks like you just took apart real information and only put in pieces you found favorable. in example how you say we have always been shooting microwaves at moon, while this is true in the episode of mythbusters they used a high powered lazer which was reflected back via the reflectors they left there. when you take a closer look at the information you have in there it really proves nothing
OK idiots, look at 16sec, Adam has to bend his knees farther to absorb impact since he weighs so much more on Earth. Look at the moon shot, no need to use your knees since you weigh much less at low gravity...
I am not brainwashed, I am a scientist. I wish American public schools were not so bad that they produced people like you who can't look up data for themselves and read peer reviewed journals.
@redbeast2 Wow, you are such a liar, your not a scientist.
Tell me this...There has been warmings in the past, and coolings in the past WHY would the warming from the late 70's to 1998 (thats right only to 1998), be considered man-made?
The fact is that the substance CO2 is more helpful than harmful and for people to say that CO2 causes warming is simply outrageous!
I recommend you take a look at this site if you want to see the REAL scientist POV...
1) How do you know that I am not a scientist; the same way you know humans haven't been to the moon?; your stupid gut feeling?
2) CO2 converts visible light and UV light into heat because a) it starts spinning and creates friction with other atoms around it b) has the right distance between C and O to accept the photons and knock their electrons into a higher energy state which is then dissipated as heat.
3) The oceans are already hypersaturated with CO2, which is not normal. Excess CO2 in our atmosphere that can't be taken up by plants and other photobiotes dissolves in water, making it acidic.
4) Yes, for some plants increased CO2 levels result in increased biomass synthesis but those plants are not a major contributor to CO2 update. Aquatic microbes are, and they can't make use of the excess CO2...
5) Just please go to college or something and learn about these things
Tell me this...There has been warmings in the past, and coolings in the past WHY would the warming from the late 70's to 1998 (thats right only to 1998), be considered man-made?
The fact is that the substance CO2 is more helpful than harmful and for people to say that CO2 causes warming is simply outrageous!
I recommend you take a look at this site if you want to see the REAL scientist POV...
@redbeast2 :Less ignorant than YOU because it is.Go look it up.Typical American who doesn't know about their on Govt.Run along and play with your peers,Grommet.
@redbeast2 :If you wanted to learn instead of trolling I would be more than happy to send you the info I have .I could apologise for calling you a "typical American"(you may be -It's the Internet,who knows?) but you're still a Grommet.So go engage in your mental masturbation with someone else,German Grommet
Exactly. Everything they did was entertaining and yet, proved the opposite of what they wanted. They showed that it could all be done here! They did it with a budget of circa 200,000 dollars; not 200,000,000,000, so they didn't do it all but, they showed it could be done. When they took TV segments of a model LEM with spotlight and showed parallel shadows, they excused themselves and changed the rig, then re-shot: thet's my favorite bit. More, he model looked real, yet the size of a tarantula.
NASA satellite crashes; the rocket carrying the NASA satellite blasts off and soon after, a protective covering failed to separate from the craft, and it crashed.
The $278-million Orbiting Carbon Observatory plunges into the ocean near Antarctica after a mechanical problem.
GOVERNMENT TROLLS RUN TO THESE VIDEOS QUICK, lmao!!!!!
GUARDIANtrooper2 8 months ago
@foxxx2001 <-------another one time hoax believer who disappeared after the LRO photo's were released.
teddysalad65 11 months ago 17
@teddysalad65
I'm steal here. Also I am a sceptic, you are the believer.
Just watching you trolls going wild.
They (LRO) are fakes aswell; the Apollo is as real as "O S A M A" being killed by "President O B A M A." .
foxxx2001 9 months ago
Wow I am sooooooooooo educated after this video that I think my head is overloaded and about to explode....lol
Samurai1568 1 year ago
@Altimadark guess what, their were no independant observers. congress passed a FCC law forbiding that. while you could snoop on a radio you were forbidden to record or speak about it. you would already know about that if you gave a shit in the first place.Happy 1970 to you to ass hole
datzfast 1 year ago
It is kind of funny how you can edit things to make people appear to say the opposite of what they really did.
AbuserTube 1 year ago 12
@AbuserTube
Yes and N A S A knows this best of all.
foxxx2001 9 months ago
mythbuster spastics
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@foxxx2001
How do you know, supply some evidence. Also, Japan has an advanced space program... are you a hillbilly or something?
redbeast2 1 year ago 3
@foxxx2001
The Soviet Union tracked it and so did France and Great Brittain.
redbeast2 1 year ago 2
wtf is this shit
redbeast2 1 year ago
Uhhh...there is medication for this. Antipsychotics do nicely to deal with paranoid delusions. Get help...
pontecanis 1 year ago 5
I want to know how in the world some one from earth 250K away operated the camera and recorded the famous LM leaving the moon on their way to earth in 1969 if the technology wasn't there yet?
thunderbolt2011 1 year ago
Radio was discovered in 1879.
Remote control was first demonstrated by Tesla in 1898.
Television transmission and video camera use began in the 1930s.
So what technology wasn't there yet?
krisdevalle 1 year ago 4
@thunderbolt2011
Nobody was operating the camera, ugh, why do they allow dumb people onto the internet.
redbeast2 1 year ago 5
It's always fascinated me how scientists repeatedly explain how it was entirely possible for us to have gone to the moon... and how people without any scientific background ask incredulous questions which would be easily asked if they'd bothered to look up the answer instead of make an ass out of themselves.
I still say some of the photos were faked for PR, but we did go to the moon.
hossrex 1 year ago 6
If we "went to the moon" why haven't we gone back? Why has only America been? why haven't they started building a base there?
Answer this.. If the technology was so great 40 years that it took people to the moon, why... WHY haven't we progressed further? they are trying to find out if there was water on the moon, we'll shit, instead of taking satellite photos why can't they send an other person or team to take samples? or why didn't they take any from the initial landing?
raeaic 2 years ago
It's not only technology Raeaic. Moreover it is about budget. The Moonlandings were as much achievement of a political goal during the cold war as anything else; at least so far, no substitute motive has been compelling enough to get the US to return, or for someone else to go. If there are major technological developments that bring down the cost of spaceflight dramatically things could change, but such things have been predicted for a long time, and so far at least, they haven't been realized.
Rob260259 2 years ago 5
@raeaic
Because it's fucking expensive, that's why.
redbeast2 1 year ago 4
@redbeast2 funny how the spend a shit load of money to send someone there to plant a flag, but wont do it for scientific research. and don't give me this shit about budget. do you know how many billions of dollars every year america's government gives to NASA? money is not an issue.
raeaic 1 year ago
@raeaic
I'm afraid your understanding of history, what robots can do versus what humans can do, and the expense associated with a life support system on a spacecraft is leading you to form incorrect and quite hilarious conclusions.
redbeast2 1 year ago 9
@Altimadark How would you expect in 1970s Russians thell to the west, that moon landing was fake? All information sources controled by American propaganda, even today and it would be imposible at that time.
Apolo 11 rocket was lonched, it go behind the moon, maybe even some robots druped on the moon, but no human waked there, A
mikeplay007 2 years ago
The Moon, with no atmosphere, is more dangerous than the surface of Mars. space radiation particles. (These particles are different from electromagnetic radiation, such as X-rays, visible light or the ultraviolet (UV) rays that cause skin cancer.)
So tell me how they went to the moon with all the radation in space how they survived and why have we not gone back in 40 years. BECAUSE MAN HAS NEVER GONE TO THE MOON.
sbrlatino 2 years ago
Kaminski and Baysinger are frauds their data was not realy indepndent. This was proven decades ago.
Also the "indepndent data" was created by an affiliate of NASA. Only NASA supposedly had the technology to track an object that size beyond the van allen belts. The launch of the Saturn 5 was tracked up to 200 miles only.
They like yourself are making dishonest statments. You have not nor cannot prove to me that the Apollo Moon Mission were anything more than a media generated hoax.
foxxx2001 2 years ago
Sorry, but you're simply wrong. Many independent astronomers saw the Apollo missions on their way to the moon. I myself saw Apollo 15 (probably its S-IVB) shortly after translunar injection, right where it was supposed to be, slowly moving against the star background.
Even some radio hams heard the Apollo radio signals themselves. Receiving carrier and voice wasn't that hard; only the video required a large dish.
Even if I could take you there, you'd still find a way to rationalize it away.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago 4
August 27 2009
Breaking news: from Amsterdam fake Moon rocks!
Google this headline
"Moon Rock" in Dutch Museum is just petrified wood
Another fake produced by NASA and their fake Apollo missions.
NASA 40 years of NOTHING!
foxxx2001 2 years ago
@foxxx2001
There is another Brazilian guy on the video First Moon Landing 1969 there say Brazil got petrified wood, but I can't verify it on the net.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago 3
they said yes it happen n u just put the words together
TheMickeybomb 2 years ago 3
there going back to the moon soon i guess well know for sure then
Hithall 2 years ago 8
When is this? 25, 30 or 100 years from now?
Thry have not gone "back" yet.
foxxx2001 2 years ago
@foxxx2001
At the current rate of progress, India should have Man back on the Moon by 2020-2025.
GlowWorm1962 11 months ago
@GlowWorm1962
This will never happen.
foxxx2001 9 months ago
@foxxx2001 Never is a very long time.
GlowWorm1962 9 months ago
Apollo 40 years of nothing.
Everyone read this latest ridiculous article about the Apollo "Moon" missions
The headline title is:
"NASA lost moon footage, but Hollywood restores it"
get ready for all the shadows and lighting issues to be erased and cleaned up. Maybe they will even add stars? Some sheep will believe anything.
foxxx2001 2 years ago
I don't know what world you live in but in the real world, We landed on the moon and Onions and Potatoes are two DIFFERENT things. Do you think if you plugged your potato clock and your onion mp3 into your brain it might start to work? Try it, get back to me.
ousiel 2 years ago 6
Irrelevant argument that does not impress me nor prove your point. Stop trying to prove a 40 year old hoax; it is impossible.
FYI
I like Apples.
foxxx2001 2 years ago
The 'quote' in the description box was YOUR words, not theirs.
boomshanka 2 years ago
This is a satire or parody of the fabled Moon mission evidence MythBusters "proved". This is a light hearted potpourri of critique. No I do not believ they went to the Moon.
Read the more info section.
foxxx2001 2 years ago
the information about the video is questionable at best due to that it looks like you just took apart real information and only put in pieces you found favorable. in example how you say we have always been shooting microwaves at moon, while this is true in the episode of mythbusters they used a high powered lazer which was reflected back via the reflectors they left there. when you take a closer look at the information you have in there it really proves nothing
gdgd9292 2 years ago
OK idiots, look at 16sec, Adam has to bend his knees farther to absorb impact since he weighs so much more on Earth. Look at the moon shot, no need to use your knees since you weigh much less at low gravity...
leolo007 2 years ago
NASA Believes in Global Warming so fuck NASA but, I want to go to space too.
killerbeau95 2 years ago 6
@killerbeau95
Global Climate Change is a scientific fact.
redbeast2 1 year ago
@redbeast2 Sir, we got another brainwashed one ova' hea'!
killerbeau95 1 year ago
@killerbeau95
I am not brainwashed, I am a scientist. I wish American public schools were not so bad that they produced people like you who can't look up data for themselves and read peer reviewed journals.
redbeast2 1 year ago
@redbeast2 Wow, you are such a liar, your not a scientist.
Tell me this...There has been warmings in the past, and coolings in the past WHY would the warming from the late 70's to 1998 (thats right only to 1998), be considered man-made?
The fact is that the substance CO2 is more helpful than harmful and for people to say that CO2 causes warming is simply outrageous!
I recommend you take a look at this site if you want to see the REAL scientist POV...
petitionproject[DOT]org
killerbeau95 1 year ago
@killerbeau95
1) How do you know that I am not a scientist; the same way you know humans haven't been to the moon?; your stupid gut feeling?
2) CO2 converts visible light and UV light into heat because a) it starts spinning and creates friction with other atoms around it b) has the right distance between C and O to accept the photons and knock their electrons into a higher energy state which is then dissipated as heat.
redbeast2 1 year ago
@killerbeau95
3) The oceans are already hypersaturated with CO2, which is not normal. Excess CO2 in our atmosphere that can't be taken up by plants and other photobiotes dissolves in water, making it acidic.
4) Yes, for some plants increased CO2 levels result in increased biomass synthesis but those plants are not a major contributor to CO2 update. Aquatic microbes are, and they can't make use of the excess CO2...
5) Just please go to college or something and learn about these things
redbeast2 1 year ago
@redbeast2 @redbeast2 Wow, you are such a liar, your not a scientist.
Tell me this...There has been warmings in the past, and coolings in the past WHY would the warming from the late 70's to 1998 (thats right only to 1998), be considered man-made?
The fact is that the substance CO2 is more helpful than harmful and for people to say that CO2 causes warming is simply outrageous!
I recommend you take a look at this site if you want to see the REAL scientist POV...
petitionproject[DOT]org
killerbeau95 1 year ago
clearly you are all beyond help.
warpedwiselegoman 2 years ago
NASA is under the Department of Commerce.I don't know what to think about the hoax suppositions,but I do know NASA is not a purely scientific agency.
KitchenTableWisdom 2 years ago
@KitchenTableWisdom
How ignorant can you be if you think NASA is an agency under the jurisdiction of the DOC?
redbeast2 1 year ago
@redbeast2 :Less ignorant than YOU because it is.Go look it up.Typical American who doesn't know about their on Govt.Run along and play with your peers,Grommet.
KitchenTableWisdom 1 year ago
@KitchenTableWisdom
I'm German and I did look it up.
usa[dot]gov / Agencies[dot]shtml
Have fun realizing that you are incorrect despite your namecalling.
redbeast2 1 year ago
@redbeast2 :If you wanted to learn instead of trolling I would be more than happy to send you the info I have .I could apologise for calling you a "typical American"(you may be -It's the Internet,who knows?) but you're still a Grommet.So go engage in your mental masturbation with someone else,German Grommet
KitchenTableWisdom 1 year ago
@KitchenTableWisdom
Ok, post the link to your "information" right here.
Also, I posted a link to the US federal government website that clearly demarks NASA as a separate agency from the department of commerce.
If you still think that NASA is an agency within the department of commerce, you have some serious issues.
redbeast2 1 year ago 4
Exactly. Everything they did was entertaining and yet, proved the opposite of what they wanted. They showed that it could all be done here! They did it with a budget of circa 200,000 dollars; not 200,000,000,000, so they didn't do it all but, they showed it could be done. When they took TV segments of a model LEM with spotlight and showed parallel shadows, they excused themselves and changed the rig, then re-shot: thet's my favorite bit. More, he model looked real, yet the size of a tarantula.
philomorphologian 3 years ago
News flash:
NASA satellite crashes; the rocket carrying the NASA satellite blasts off and soon after, a protective covering failed to separate from the craft, and it crashed.
The $278-million Orbiting Carbon Observatory plunges into the ocean near Antarctica after a mechanical problem.
foxxx2001 3 years ago
keeps saying yiff
xxdonatelloxx 3 years ago
Question;
At 0:32 when the Lunar Landar is blasting off who is panning the camera up????
That seems staged and fake.
Zumzammim 3 years ago 2
I am not sure, and yes it was indeed faked.
foxxx2001 3 years ago
@Zumzammim
A motor attached to the camera.
redbeast2 1 year ago
Haha.
I like your style.
greenmagoos 3 years ago
Me too magoos.. At least this version of the "Mythbusters" TV program is more accurate and honest.
straydog02 3 years ago