@DeadJesus100 you should be in a mental asylum you moron. apollo troll you should be in a mental asylum you moron. apollo troll you should be in a mental asylum you moron. apollo troll you should be in a mental asylum you moron. apollo troll you should be in a mental asylum you moron. apollo troll
This guy reaches new lows in trying to discredit conspiracy theorists. He comes up with absolutely distorted insignificant newer argued points. imagine the intelligence of sheeple he is grilling now.
WHO RUNS N.A.S.A =NEVER A STRIGHT ANSWER.???? THE CIA? WHO RUNS US? THE AMOUNT OF B.S THAT GOES ON. AND CORRUPTION MAKES ME PUKE.AND LAST BUT LEAST WHY IS IT WHEN CERTAIN PEOPLE TRY TO SPEAK UP THEY END UP HAVING DIRE ACCIDENTS...JFK. AND MANY OTHERS
@TONYPARAMOTOR Oh yeah, and you might want to think about taking your 'caps lock' off, because typos and bad grammar aside, it just makes you look dumber, or just mad.
Throughout mankinds history it has been, 5% of the population that invents and engineer ideas. 15% that can understand and implement the idea or technology. 80% do the grunt work or don't understand. Look at the technology around you today...80% have no idea how it works. WE WENT TO THE MOON! The Hoaxers can not understand.
Conspiracy theorists would argue this entire oral presentation cannot be real because technology like PowerPoint was not used in its making. Bunch of idiots.
thrust ratios cant lie. now even if we had the rocket that could make it , its to dangerous to try and that's so sad to me, we missed it. remember science is suppose to be scientific not blind faith. there is nothing scientific about this continued hoax on people who can add 2 numbers together and disprove the trip.ever happened.
and ask yourself why we wont allow checking of the rest of them . hmm? because they are all fake moon rocks that's why , ha ha ha you are gullible sheep of bad science . i love science and a total nerd geek so disjointed to discover independently by scientific study 20 years ago that it was all a joke played on us , so broken hearted crushed in fact. i want it to be true so bad but the numbers cant lie. we absolutely did not go to the moon using that craft.
i get a kick at the foolishness if scientists clinging on something so disproved that it has become laughably stupid. blind faith of bad science and badly hoaxed pictures when all the moon rocks sent to museums are one by one being proven terrestrial .
so it would be suicide to try and make a base there.everything about the moon is in flux right now. if we did go to the moon we didn't do it with the moon popular moon landing that's a proven fact by overwhelming evidence. the fact that nasa beats this dead horse going no ware is a joke in the extrema lol.
conspiracy inset a theory in this case. a grad school child can figure this out just like i did when i wanted to go to the moon myself as a child. funny how the conspiracy theory people seem to be proven rite over and over on the news about what is going on. the moon landing is more a religion then a reality. by the way the reason the moon base was canceled is that the moon is in a spin now and totally unpredictable
funny you people cling to a dead horse. the film is totally hoaxed. i knew this from my own observations decades ago. we wer in a war and needed to push our enemy to do stupid things.. its fake and all science cant prove that its not. any true scientist will tell you that the rocket itself couldn't make it that fare.
HAHAHA what a quote, "the lunar module had never landed on the moon before Apollo 11". Well mate, there has to be a first for everything. haha, this sums up the intelligence of soooo many hoax believers
The fact that something is difficult, doesn't make it impossible. Thousands of men and women, including the brave astronauts, poured so much time and effort into achieving the greatest technological achievement of ALL TIME, and it really is a shame that there is are so many skeptics rubbishing this event with their ridiculous theories, and its a kick in the face to the people who poured their heart and soul into this project.
Your theories have been debunked. please stop talking and accept it.
@amor987654321 They are not skeptics, they are deniers. A skeptic is someone who accepts the scientific evidence on a topic. Deniers are nay-sayers who ignore any evidence that contradicts their dogma.
@mddawson1 i'd have to agree with that. well, whatever they are to be labeled they amaze me at their lack of intelligence on the matter. "oooo the ascent stage didnt make a flame". learn a thing or two on hypergolic fuels in vacuums. when something conflicts with your Hollywood influenced point of views, please don't assume its fake.
Before I started to study the Apollo project, I was not a skeptic and not a denier.
It's when I have started to seriously study the Apollo project that I have become a skeptic, and therefore also a denier.
And when I say the Apollo project, I don't mean only the footage but also the technical documentation: I have found incoherences absolutely everywhere, and incoherences which indeniably prove a sabotage.
@KiLLeRxxBuNNy I can not see the logic. If they do not believe in the bible, there is no need to swear on it. If they do not believe, but swear on it, they could not be taken seriously.
Otherwise I can not see a swear on the bible as a proof for the landings. I prefer scientific facts, and the facts say: They went.
@KiLLeRxxBuNNy Haha even if they did swear on the bible, the skeptics would still not believe it. Skeptics have begged to get satellite imagery of the Apollo landing sites, and now that they have it, it is not enough. Whatever credible evidence that you give them, they will reject it based on ideas of "government lies and cover-ups". Instead of listening to facts which are backed by scientific evidence, they so devoutly follow their ridiculous theories. they're all fucking ignorant cunts.
Besides, even if someone sincerely swears something, that does not mean that what he believes in is true; he may have been fooled in believing something which is not true; I am convinced that the CIA has used its experience it had in mind manipulation to brainwash the astronauts and convince them they had actually walked on the moon.
I have listened to what they say and heard them say stupidities that I know they can't be real.
- There is the well known fact that they say they could not see stars; that their camera could not catch stars can be comprehensible, but it is less comprehensible that they could not see them with their own eyes.
There are also less known facts, but which betray them for me:
- The fact that they say that there was an alarm because the computer received "too much data"; this is totally laughable, for a computer always receives the same amount of data; it may be stuck for other reasons, but not for receiving "too much data".
- The fact that the CM's pilot could see the LM in the distance as a small shining object does not make sense either, for, when the LM leaves the CM, it starts reducing its horizontal speed (initially the orbital speed of the CM, that is around 6000km/h) for it must land on the moon with a null horizontal speed; that means that in fact, when the LM is at a certain distance from the CM, it is behind the CM, and the CM can't see it.
Please recruit some film students to help you make this information look slick like all the fake ass hoax videos. The hoax believer has no patience to sit in a class like this and get real information. That is the exact reason they believe the hoax. Whoever makes the best video about it, they believe. I enjoy this and appreciate the info, it won't make the difference without better production.
@Haplotype0 - It wouldn't matter if this message had the best production values, moon landing deniers would still deny because its their faith based around the conspiracy theories they believe. Quite frankly they are mentally deficient lacking basic logic skills.
Please clear this up for all these idjits who want to believe EVERYTHING is a HOAX. Goddamn, how many hoaxes do you encounter in an average day 0. I think it is this weak new generation who can't believe anyone can get anything done because they can't get anything done. It is sad.
It was impossible to put a man on the Moon in 1969. Your laptop has 100,000 times more computer power than the Apollo space craft and mission control at Houston combined, at that time. Can you go to the moon in a 2002 Ford Taurus? Of course not. That simple car had 10.000 times the technology and computer power of Apollo. It was faked to make us look like the ultimate world power. Afterall, we can't do it now- we couldn't do it then.
@neilx13 Exactly how much computing power is required to put man on the moon? Enough to reach & land on the moon which is what they had in 1969.
You are resorting to the logical fallacy Argument from Incredulity where you cannot comprehend how they did it so they didn't. I have to tell you something - the NASA techs are smarter than you.
Here is some research for you: When were the fastest jet aircraft & fastest jet airliner designed & built?
@Monkeyboysdontknow No, I'm not joining the "ignorant minority". It is your opinion that I'm doing that. Everyone has an opinion, and no one is right or wrong. It's all "maybe". And by the way, why be such a dick, leaving borderline rude comments to someone you don't even know? You don't know anything about me, but you still find the time and energy to leave a negative comment on youtube, directed toward me. Good luck dude, nice job.
Still wrong. Your opinion is wrong, becausyou state it as fact. Your ''opinion'' is based on ignorance. I know that from your uneducated posts. I challange you to prove otherwise. On WHAT evidence do you base your opinion?
@Monkeyboysdontknow Haha...you crack me up! In my reply, I said "..IT'S ALL MAYBE." You somehow chose to ignore that. But anyway. You have your opinion, I have mine. And I LOVE your toughguy/narrow-minded challenge: "I challenge you to prove otherwise." Ooooh!! Well, sorry, I haven't been to the moon. You? Also, I don't argue with negative people. That's your hobby, apparently. So, SO lame. Please: get a hobby. Also, if you reply to this again, it PROVES you are a dickhead. Good day :D
''Also, if you reply to this again, it PROVES you are a dickhead.''
Still wrong. The only thing YOUR post ''proves'' is you have no idea what constitutes ''proof''. You originally said, ''Couldn't agree more'' to @neilx13, who said, ''It was impossible to put a man on the Moon in 1969.'' There is NO ''maybe'' about that. My ''tough guy/narrow minded challenge'' is intended to get you to do some basic research. THAT part is up to you.
@Monkeyboysdontknow You can't prove a negative monkeyboy. What evidence do you base your absolutely infallible knowledge as to man's strolls upon the lunar surface? Did your mom tell you about it? Oh, you saw it on the TV. Do you believe in Santy Clause as well? Hopefully he brings you a brain for Christmas this year or at least the ability think for yourself.
''What evidence do you base your absolutely infallible knowledge as to man's strolls upon the lunar surface?''
Let me see...how about over 800 pounds of Moon rocks, personal testimonies, tracking of the missions by many independant observers, the fact that we COULD, and pictures of the mission remnants by JAXA and the LRO?
What makes you have ANY reasonable doubt about that?
@Monkeyboysdontknow Well, 800 pounds of moon rocks proves only that 800 pounds of something exists, I have no knowledge of any independent observers reporting anything, no evidence exists that proves we COULD penetrate the Van Allen radiation belt safely and a simple time study of the alleged lunar photos suggests that inadequate time existed to perform all the experiments and wandering about AND taking all the pictures. Those things all raise reasonable doubts.
''Well, 800 pounds of moon rocks proves only that 800 pounds of something exists''
Well to the thousands of scientists that have studied them for over 40 years and have ALL concluded they could only have come from the SURFACE of the Moon, that ''something'' is pretty obvious. I find that a fairly valid proof. YOUR objection?
@Monkeyboysdontknow Thousands of scientists also said heavier than air flight was impossible. Thousands of scientists are funded by government grants as well. Most people are bright enough not to bite the hand that feeds them.
''Thousands of scientists also said heavier than air flight was impossible. Thousands of scientists are funded by government grants as well.''
First sentence is irrelevent. Thousands of scientists will now say such flight IS possible. The two positions do NOT cancel the truth.
Second sentence infers a ludicrous grand conspiracy among all nations that have studied the Moon rocks. What proof have you for that? Mere conjecture, I am expecting.
@Monkeyboysdontknow Not mere conjecture, awesome conjecture. Again, there is no way to prove a negative; it's impossible. Just like traveling to the moon in a tinfoil spaceship is impossible.
In your own warped mind, perhaps, but you have NO facts, NO evidence, JUST conjecture. Be it awesome, mind-boggling, or weak asw hell, it is still ""merely'' conjecture. Conjecture cannot replace ''eveidence''. Ask any court of law.
@Monkeyboysdontknow Speaking of courts of law, you should see: Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008) and others RE Wikipedia being roundly rejected as a source of information. As to evidence, you have provided none. Not one scrap. Every bit you've regurgitated is unsubstantiated hearsay, second hand or easily impeachable as being given by those with a vested interest in said evidence being true. I need not supply evidence, you, the accuser, do.
''I need not supply evidence, you, the accuser, do.''
Handwaving the evidence provided by NASA does NOT refute it, no matter how much you wish it could. As far as ''accuser'', I am accusing no one of anything other than you of your own ignorance. You continue to supply all the proof I need for THAT.
''I have no knowledge of any independent observers reporting anything''
WIki ''Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings'' and look at the glut of information. WHY don't YOU bother to check ANY of this out before you make such ludicrous claims?
''no evidence exists that proves we COULD penetrate the Van Allen radiation belt safely''
Where did you get YOUR ''evidence''? Dosimeter read outs, and Van Allen's testimony concerning the VABs are good proof they COULD.
@Monkeyboysdontknow HAAAAA!!!! Wikipedia is your source???? HAAAAAA!!!! You might as well say your grandma told you so.
Thanks for the laughs monkeyboy. According to my whoopsiemeter, it's time to move on to a more intelligent conversation. Wikipedia, that's so awesome.
Nice rebuttal. Wiki was just a pointer where you could use their references to find the original sources (i.e., ''astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html''). Because you choose to laugh this off rather than do any of your own research, or provide any credible rebuttle, just shows how content you are to remain ignorant.
@Monkeyboysdontknow Thank you, it was a nice rebuttal. I'm glad you took the time to compliment me on it.
Wikipedia is a pseudo-encyclopedia sourced by people like you and it is therefore completely laughable to attempt to use it in any way in a real argument. By the way, ignorant refers to someone not having certain knowledge or information; I disagree with your position. This does not make me ignorant, simply your antagonist in the extant discussion.
''ignorant refers to someone not having certain knowledge or information''
I am glad you are not ignorant about what I am saying about your knowledge (or rather, lack of) irn refgards to the Moon landings. I also see you completely ignored the fact that the sources on Wiki CAN be verified (or not). It just takes a little effort.
''a simple time study of the alleged lunar photos suggests that inadequate time existed to perform all the experiments and wandering about AND taking all the pictures''
''Simple'' is the word. The number of photos have been shown to be easily accounted for, considering some were double shots, many were rapid sequence panoramas and there were ofter two astronauts taking the pictures. Been watching one too many U-tube videos, instead of real research?
@Monkeyboysdontknow No, they haven't. Snapping a focused and posed picture every 30 seconds would tend to cut into experiment time. They wouldn't even have time for a sip of Tang.
''Snapping a focused and posed picture every 30 seconds would tend to cut into experiment time. They wouldn't even have time for a sip of Tang.''
Pure, uneducated conjecture on your part. I, NASA and photgraphy experts have no plroblem with the FACT they were able to accomplish this work. You, of course, believe yo know more than the experts, yet cannot provide anything beyond conjecture.
@pecjames -- No. A simple time study does NOT "suggest inadequate time existed to perform all the experiments and wandering about and taking all the pictures."
The timeline is very well documented. And sufficient time certainly DID exist for all the activities that were performed and documented.
Do you use anything other than your own imagination as a source? Or do you consider your imagination to be a more reliable source than Wikipedia?
@pecjames- Also, I am curious about one thing and I'd like to get the opinion of a hoax-theory promoter on it.
It is extremely easy, given a decent knowledge of physics and understanding of basic math, to prove that people such as David Percy, Marcus Allen, and Bart Sibrel provide fraudulent "evidence" in favor of the hoax-theory.
Given that they do, in fact, lie to promote their theory, I am wondering:
If Apollo really was a "hoax" why do you think "experts" feel the need to lie to prove it?
You can't go to the moon in a Ford Taurus mostly because it doesn't have a seven million pound thrust rocket launching it up into space. It has nothing to do with the car's computer.
It was pretty obvious to anyone who actually saw a Saturn V rocket that the thing was a LOT bigger than any booster we have today.
It existed.
It worked.
A hundred thousand people saw it lift off from Florida ... in person.
@neilx13 first your point about the Ford Taurus is shit because that was designed to go on road, the LM was made to go to the moon. Who said "we can't do it now". Yes, we can do it FYI, there is just no point spending millions of tax dollars to go to a place we have already been. going back=waste of money. People cite the technology needed to go to the moon as the most important part. the significant factor in achieving a landing was being EXTREMELY precise. we had the technology to do so.
@amor987654321 The Taurus thing is an "analogy" that was taken from a Ford ad about the 2004 Ford Taurus having 26x the computer power that Apollo used to supposedly go to the moon. It was the director of NASA that said moon travel is impossible because "it would be cruel to subjet humans to such a large amount of radiation" and "they could not possibly live through it". Sorry, you need to do a little research before you believe what you government tells you- I know- I used to work for them.
@sethb80 Yes, i am aware of what an analogy is, i was just highlighting the irrelevance of it. Although the computers were shit by today's standard, they had the capabilities that were needed to get there. And yeah, don't assume i haven't done research. Dr. Van allen himself said that the belts wouldn't pose a threat to manned space travel. The longest exposure to radiation when traveling through the belts was approx 2 hours during Apollo 14, not enough to cause radiation sickness.
@sethb80 btw, the radiation in the belts is particle radiation, and perhaps one of the best shields for this are light metals such as aluminum and also plastics, both were abundant in the spacecraft. The construction of the CSM on the apollo missions consisted of many layers of protection. inner and outer protective layers, layers of mylar etc etc. common misconception that it is absolutely impossible to travel through the belts and escape radiation sickness.
@sethb80 Oh and also, I'm extremely sorry, i should apologize for my comments. Any sort of scientific backing becomes irrelevant and means nothing as you, in fact, have worked for the government and quoted one man.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts, experts said on Monday.
"Given today's knowledge and today's understanding of radiation protection, to put someone out in that type of environment would violate the current requirements that NASA has."
@nasafakedit - If deniers had any brains they wouldn't be deniers. How long were the Apollo flights? How long would it take to get to Mars? In the term "radiation exposure" note the word exposure. Why do techs in x-ray labs stand behind shielding whilst patients get direct exposure? Time numb-nut. I truly wonder how you can survive with only 2 functioning brain cells.
bla bla bla and still no evidence for a real moonlanding. They can only ridicule the so called conspiracy theorists. SHOW EVIDENCE if you want to proof the landing was real.
@GreanGrow there is plenty of evidence - film, photos, Soviet tracking data, independent reception of Apollo broadcasts, moon rocks. What more do you want - NASA to fly you there???
@nasafakedit Do some research about the Dutch moonrocks - they were given by a US senator, not NASA so there is doubt they were moon rocks. They were held by a Dutch politicians family for many years so we cannot verify what they handed over to the museum was what they were given. There are many doubts about this rock but not because of NASA. Independent reception of an Apollo mission: ww w. svengrahn. pp .se/trackind/ Apollo17/APOLLO17. htm
it is a hoax because it showed the american flag on the moon and the flag was waving like it was being hit by air but that is not possible in the moon because of the gravity
@FR00b2u The flag was twisted into the ground & unrolled (it had a wire along the top edge). Without an atmosphere to slow it down it took longer to stop waving. Seriously why don't you do a bit of research on wikipedia rather than idiot conspiracy theorists website.
Jeesh, talking to a moon haoxer is like trying to talk with a goat. Non-parallel shadows, VanAllen belts, no stars, waving flags... You'd think the Lunar Recon Orbiter photos of EVERY Apollo landing site would shut them up - after all, they've been screaming for years to point the Hubble at the moon and snap those very same pictures. But now, they say the LRO images are all fake and PhotoShopped, too. God, we're doomed. It's "The Curse of the Shitheads" starring Bart Sibrel, Coming Soon!
Obviously, we went to the moon. The flag waves more because there is less air resistance than it would immersed in a gaseous atmosphere. The LRO images are added proof. There is no question we went to the moon.
However, the lunar artifact question need not be smeared with the lack of logic. In fact, what you call transparency - (release of the LRO images) I call DELAYED transparency.
Real transparency is ALL of the LRO data in real time. Not six months later.
@hibob418 These morons have never heard of vanishing points. EVERY FUCKING SHADOW CAST BY THE SUN IS NON PARALLEL DEPENDING ON YOU POINT OF VIEW !!! If you look from above they are, from the ground they are not! Take a fucking picture of a road stretching to the horizon. Are the lines parallel now you morons??? Conspiracy nuts are dumber than a cracked floor tile...
@hibob418 Well said. What do they get out of believing this is a hoax? I don't get how people can call hoax when this is one of the best documented achievements in history. It is so hard talking to people who blindly believe what they want to be true. I've concluded gen y is so likely to believe things are hoaxes because they cannot fathom how anyone can get something done. The reason is because they cannot get anything done besides beating the newest Super Mario game.
@hibob418 .ANSWER THIS?WHY GO TO THE MOON THEN LEAVE ITAND DONT GO BACK?THENTHEY START UP THE SPACE SHUTTLE SERVICE. IT JUST SEEMS ARSE ABOUT BACKWARDS.THERE NOT GOING FORWARD BUT BACKWARDS.THEY SHOULD OF DONE THE SHUTTLE SERVICE FIRST THEN THE MOON.BUT NO THEY WENT ALL OUT TO THE MOON.HOW DID THEY MANAGE THE RADIATION?OR SHALL THE UP TO DATE ASTRONAUTS JUST USE PRE 60S SPACE SUITS THERE FAR BETTER.....AND EVEN NOW.ARE YOU TELLING ME N.A.S.A TELL NOTHING BUT THE WHOLE TRUTH?THEY LIE.AND WHY LIE?
@TONYPARAMOTOR WHY GO TO THE MOON THEN LEAVE ITAND DONT GO BACK?
Only politicians can send men to the moon. The funding to NASA was cut back after '67
To maintain a more lengthy presence on the Moon is a very expensive proposition. Besides the scientific data retrieved what would be the economic benefit?
@TONYPARAMOTOR First of all, TRY LEARNING TO WRITE A COHERENT SENTENCE. Jeesh. Calm down.
But you raise a good point, in the late 50's, the natural outgrowth of the X-15 and X-20 Dyno-Soar projects would have been a shuttle-like spaceplane, and many in the AirForce, etc wanted to go that route. But because of the Soviet "threat,"and to hurry up, it was decided to launch capsule-like spacecraft on our existing ICBM's, the Redstone & Atlas, and later the Titan II. (more)
@hibob418 IS THIS QUESTION .....COHERENT ENOUGH FOR YOU EINSTEN...ANSWER THIS IF U CAN. DO YOU TRUST N.A.S. A YES OR NO..........ITS ABIT LIKE SAYING DO YOU TRUST THE USA GOVERMENT? AND IF YOU DO.THEN YOUR A IDIOT.I ASKED YOU FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SUBJECT AND YOU NEVER REALLY ANSWER THEM.U GO AROUND THE ANSWER WITH TOTAL B.S
@TONYPARAMOTOR Dude, I'm perfectly capable of answering any question about project Apollo you might have, including the radiation issues, but you already have your mind made up about NASA, the government, the CIA, and most likely Obama's birth certificate, so what's the point?
But, I lived on Florida's Space Coast for 12 years, covered the shuttle launches for 2 media outlets, and I know quite a few people at NASA. They're some of the smartest and dedicated people I've ever met. (more)
@TONYPARAMOTOR They're certainly smarter than any hoax proponent I've ever spoken to. So, I have no reason not to trust NASA (which by your logic makes me an idiot). But like I said, you already have your mind made up, so talking to you is a waste of time. You don't even have the requisite knowledge about the subject if you're still hung up about the VanAllen belts. Those concerns regarding Apollo were debunked years ago.
Don't have to believe me, get off the web and read a book on the subject.
@TONYPARAMOTOR Then JFK made the challenge to go to the moon by the end of the decade, and it was an all out race with the Russians for the first lunar landing.
Then Nixon & Congress cut the program short after Apollo 17 and the American public at large hasn't supported spending the money to back to the moon, or Mars or wherever. None of this is new, and it's now all about politics and money. As far as radiation, I could do 20 paragraphs on why it wasn't a problem, better you read it yourself.
The question that I have is about the alleged structures on the moon. And, why so many orbiters - japanese, chinese, indian, and now nasa's LRO.
Yet so few images released.
It seems odd that so few images have been released, its almost as if there is a clearinghouse so that each nation can get their story straight before they let the image out.
Or, maybe not. We don't know, but withholding images seems suspicious.
Only the LRO has cameras capable of imaging the Apollo landers. All the others can only resolve 10 metres to 1 image pixel. The Apollo landers are 8 metres in diameter so will not show up in photos. Even the LRO can just make them out. Photographing Apollo sites was not a major concern for any of these missions.
I'm convinced the moon landing is a hoax. I do a lot of post-production and it looks just like that. even the diehards must be slightly suspicious at NASA loosing the original footage? when did that happen last?
@YoungKlarkKent Post production work today is much more sophisticated than what was available in 1969. There was no digital technology for image processing then, no computers available to the public for image processing at all, so faking anything would be much more difficult and/or obvious. I remember when computers in the late eighties, early nineties (Macs anyway) first had 32 bit color. Before that the best you got was at most 16 bit and usually 8 bit.
I'm convinced the moon landing is a hoax. I do a lot of post-production and it looks just like that. even the diehards must be slightly suspicious at NASA loosing the original footage? when did that happen last? at the very least something went wrong or they decided to re-create what they didn't capture.
YoungKK, 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 familiar with the geologic studies of celestial bodies?
it didn't: many people working for nasa immediately understood it; the average person wouldn't have had anything to compare it to just as I didn't when I was a kid until later when came to understand certain principles. The most obvious is that the lunar take off happened without a burn which would have created an exaust plume half the size of the module. But what average rural person (most populations were still in the country) with a grade 3 education those days would know that.
I recently started work in records management & I have identified lots of lost files, etc. Initially NASA wasn't going to broadcast the landing, it was pretty much an afterthought. Also any post-production equipment you use would be scifi to people back then. Ask yourself this question - is there anything in the Apollo footage that would require faking, that is physically impossible?
Im probably gonna get like tons of replys to what i say, but i believe that the trip to the moon was a hoax, i mean come on, unparrelel shadows which means there was more than one light, i.e artifical lighting, day 1 and day 2 had the same area althought they said they were 2 miles away, even if they were to go to the moon, the couldnt pass the radiation belt & the sun was producing the most radiation ever recorded,people on earth were affected by the suns radiation, so the trip was a hoax
All of your claims have been addressed and easily dismissed, please do a little bit of research before making such fuckass stupid statements. The Apollo missions were real grow up queer.
Perfectly parallel shadows would only occur if the moons surface was perfectly flat which I am sure you will agree it isn't. Also there are 2 light sources on the moon, the sun & Earth. Think about a full moon at night, it casts shadows. Now think about the Earth as seen from the moon. It would be bigger & brighter than a full moon seen from Earth. Van Allen who discovered the belts says it would have only given them a years worth of radiation that we get on Earth.
Mddawson, even if the surface was perfectly flat, the shadows would not be parallel when viewed toward or away from the sun. Perspective causes them to appear to converge at the horizon.
This is frequently visible on earth and there are many pictures online showing it. HBs don't seem to have any aptitude or common sense at all about natural phenomena. Kaysing called this one of the strongest arguments against Apollo. To a third grader, maybe.
I was thinking of the examples HBs show which are usually shortish shadows cast by 2 close objects. These are usually too short to show convergence. Another aspect of moon photos HBs don't understand is that they lack the visual cues that show distance as in photos on Earth. Hills in moon photos appear to be close but could be 100 km away due to the lack of atmospheric haze.
Mddawson: Great point! I have pointed out this business of how difficult it is to judge distance -- how easy it is to GROSSLY under-estimate, but I never applied it to converging shadows.
Your claims have been addressed ad nauseam and you are apparently unaware of those explanations.
Shadows don't appear parallel on earth, either. It's called perspective and surface irregularity. No knowledgeable, thinking person would make this argument because they would realize that multiple lighting sources will cause multiple shadows -- from EVERY object.
The scenes you are talking about WERE, in fact, a fraud -- committed by Bart Sibrel. The audio record proves that he cheated.
Cont'd. You can get solar data from a couple of different reliable sources online. Clearly you didn't check the data before making that statement. Now you know that hoax believers lie -- or pass on others' lies, like you just did. The sun was NOT particularly active during ANY of the Apollo missions. And if it was, NASA people know the dangers far better than you or any other HB.
Van Allen himself, addressed the objections of HBs concerning radiation. He said they were "nonsense."
Thank you for the upload. Looking through your comments, I take some measure of solace that people actually researched and pointed out the glaring inaccuracies in the moon hoax conspiracy theory. You are well informed and articulate. If people wish to believe we didn't land on the moon then they clearly have not bothered to research and mores the shame on them.
Thank you again for a good reprieve from the rampant idiocy.
Yes, the Soviets monitored EVERYTHING we put into space -- for obvious reasons. They received the audio and video from the moon by aiming their receivers AT THE MOON. The only explanation experienced HBs can come up with is that they were in cahoots with our hoax. Yeah, right.
After considering this fact, HBs look utterly stupid when they persist. It alone, is absolute proof that we went.
Jarrah told me a while back something about a certain grain, or other produce that was severly running low in Russia and the US was giving it to them, in return, the Soviet Union would keep their mouths shut about the alleged hoax.
If I remember correcly, Jarrah said this is something Rene discovered while researching for "NASA Mooned America."
Tremor, that deal was in the summer of 1972. The Soviets had been watching our Apollo program for three years at that point. Is Jarrah actually using that deal to support his hoax claims?
I agree wholeheartedly with you. In fact, I have made the same assertions time after time that the Ruskies (What? I loved the right stuff) Did have the ability to monitor what we were doing. If we had not gone to the moon, then who would have said something? The Ruskies thats who. Thanks for adding a little bit to elaborate. I was not planning on clarifying further because the poster never even bothered to respond.
Not only did they have the ability, but you can be certain that they watched with keen interest, ANYTHING we put into space -- as they were very distrusting of us and very afraid of our ICBM ability.
In fact, I'll bet we had to inform them in advance of every rocket launch we ever made, just because WE feared THEIR hair-trigger attitude toward nukes.
Hey, mddawson1. I'm interested in your videos, but I have terrible speakers. Could you tell me which part and section debunks David Groves's analysis of the lunar landing photographs? The ones that have to do with lighting and angles and all that good stuff. It would be much appreciated. Thanks.
'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake. todays news-lol sowhat else is new-big surprise.you assholes-we never went to the moon.
This has been flagged as spam show
Join our White House petition to investigate the Apollo moon landings. End date 31 March 2012.
Peace to you
awe130 1 day ago
@smogmontser the apollo troll hides his channel, coward
DeadJesus100 1 month ago
Nasa Nazi Disney Moon landings
Filmed on planet earth
DeadJesus100 1 month ago
@smogmontser the mentally retarded monkey troll
USSR took photos of stars from space and so did shuttle discovery you sick monkey
DeadJesus100 1 month ago
NASA NAZI BS
If its Fake
Its Nasa
DeadJesus100 1 month ago
@smogmontser the monkey troll has a disney education :)
No stars in Nasa's Fake Apollo Universe moron
DeadJesus100 1 month ago
@smogmontser you should be in a mental asylum you moron. apollo troll
DeadJesus100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DeadJesus100 you should be in a mental asylum you moron. apollo troll you should be in a mental asylum you moron. apollo troll you should be in a mental asylum you moron. apollo troll you should be in a mental asylum you moron. apollo troll you should be in a mental asylum you moron. apollo troll
staIkervisions 1 month ago
NASA DISNEY MOON LANDINGS
Nasa directors should all be in prison for Fraud and Treason
DeadJesus100 2 months ago
This guy reaches new lows in trying to discredit conspiracy theorists. He comes up with absolutely distorted insignificant newer argued points. imagine the intelligence of sheeple he is grilling now.
unatics 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The moon missions were faked.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio (dot) html
Cosmored 7 months ago
WHO RUNS N.A.S.A =NEVER A STRIGHT ANSWER.???? THE CIA? WHO RUNS US? THE AMOUNT OF B.S THAT GOES ON. AND CORRUPTION MAKES ME PUKE.AND LAST BUT LEAST WHY IS IT WHEN CERTAIN PEOPLE TRY TO SPEAK UP THEY END UP HAVING DIRE ACCIDENTS...JFK. AND MANY OTHERS
TONYPARAMOTOR 8 months ago
@TONYPARAMOTOR Oh yeah, and you might want to think about taking your 'caps lock' off, because typos and bad grammar aside, it just makes you look dumber, or just mad.
hibob418 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Throughout mankinds history it has been, 5% of the population that invents and engineer ideas. 15% that can understand and implement the idea or technology. 80% do the grunt work or don't understand. Look at the technology around you today...80% have no idea how it works. WE WENT TO THE MOON! The Hoaxers can not understand.
inotnad 9 months ago
Conspiracy theorists would argue this entire oral presentation cannot be real because technology like PowerPoint was not used in its making. Bunch of idiots.
fishhead00 9 months ago
turn up the volume so boring im falling asleep here god quit rambling on like an old windbag
MrToiletface 9 months ago
lol@this. who pays these people to try to prove that what really didn't happen did? not even worth watching this.
blackberries69 9 months ago
morons
toopeek 10 months ago
thrust ratios cant lie. now even if we had the rocket that could make it , its to dangerous to try and that's so sad to me, we missed it. remember science is suppose to be scientific not blind faith. there is nothing scientific about this continued hoax on people who can add 2 numbers together and disprove the trip.ever happened.
williamrobinsonb 10 months ago
@williamrobinsonb = f...ing retard
mddawson1 10 months ago
@williamrobinsonb And the thrust ratios work out perfectly.
Or are you saying that not only the Apollo missions were a hoax, but also the previous and later robotic moon landings were also hoaxes?
herbys68 4 months ago
and ask yourself why we wont allow checking of the rest of them . hmm? because they are all fake moon rocks that's why , ha ha ha you are gullible sheep of bad science . i love science and a total nerd geek so disjointed to discover independently by scientific study 20 years ago that it was all a joke played on us , so broken hearted crushed in fact. i want it to be true so bad but the numbers cant lie. we absolutely did not go to the moon using that craft.
williamrobinsonb 10 months ago
i get a kick at the foolishness if scientists clinging on something so disproved that it has become laughably stupid. blind faith of bad science and badly hoaxed pictures when all the moon rocks sent to museums are one by one being proven terrestrial .
williamrobinsonb 10 months ago
so it would be suicide to try and make a base there.everything about the moon is in flux right now. if we did go to the moon we didn't do it with the moon popular moon landing that's a proven fact by overwhelming evidence. the fact that nasa beats this dead horse going no ware is a joke in the extrema lol.
williamrobinsonb 10 months ago
conspiracy inset a theory in this case. a grad school child can figure this out just like i did when i wanted to go to the moon myself as a child. funny how the conspiracy theory people seem to be proven rite over and over on the news about what is going on. the moon landing is more a religion then a reality. by the way the reason the moon base was canceled is that the moon is in a spin now and totally unpredictable
williamrobinsonb 10 months ago
funny you people cling to a dead horse. the film is totally hoaxed. i knew this from my own observations decades ago. we wer in a war and needed to push our enemy to do stupid things.. its fake and all science cant prove that its not. any true scientist will tell you that the rocket itself couldn't make it that fare.
williamrobinsonb 10 months ago
HAHAHA what a quote, "the lunar module had never landed on the moon before Apollo 11". Well mate, there has to be a first for everything. haha, this sums up the intelligence of soooo many hoax believers
amor987654321 10 months ago
The fact that something is difficult, doesn't make it impossible. Thousands of men and women, including the brave astronauts, poured so much time and effort into achieving the greatest technological achievement of ALL TIME, and it really is a shame that there is are so many skeptics rubbishing this event with their ridiculous theories, and its a kick in the face to the people who poured their heart and soul into this project.
Your theories have been debunked. please stop talking and accept it.
amor987654321 10 months ago
@amor987654321 They are not skeptics, they are deniers. A skeptic is someone who accepts the scientific evidence on a topic. Deniers are nay-sayers who ignore any evidence that contradicts their dogma.
mddawson1 10 months ago
@mddawson1 i'd have to agree with that. well, whatever they are to be labeled they amaze me at their lack of intelligence on the matter. "oooo the ascent stage didnt make a flame". learn a thing or two on hypergolic fuels in vacuums. when something conflicts with your Hollywood influenced point of views, please don't assume its fake.
amor987654321 10 months ago
@mddawson1
I am not a denier who denies with no evidence.
Before I started to study the Apollo project, I was not a skeptic and not a denier.
It's when I have started to seriously study the Apollo project that I have become a skeptic, and therefore also a denier.
And when I say the Apollo project, I don't mean only the footage but also the technical documentation: I have found incoherences absolutely everywhere, and incoherences which indeniably prove a sabotage.
hunchbacked 5 months ago
why those astronauts cant swear to bible?
its very easy to swear if they dont say a lie.
KiLLeRxxBuNNy 1 year ago
@KiLLeRxxBuNNy Maybe they don't believe in the bible, anyway why isn't their word good enough for you???
mddawson1 1 year ago
@mddawson1 if they dont believe in bible it will be easy for them to swear because they arent afraid to god but it they believe its hard
KiLLeRxxBuNNy 1 year ago
@KiLLeRxxBuNNy I can not see the logic. If they do not believe in the bible, there is no need to swear on it. If they do not believe, but swear on it, they could not be taken seriously.
Otherwise I can not see a swear on the bible as a proof for the landings. I prefer scientific facts, and the facts say: They went.
CHSarahBs 11 months ago
@KiLLeRxxBuNNy Haha even if they did swear on the bible, the skeptics would still not believe it. Skeptics have begged to get satellite imagery of the Apollo landing sites, and now that they have it, it is not enough. Whatever credible evidence that you give them, they will reject it based on ideas of "government lies and cover-ups". Instead of listening to facts which are backed by scientific evidence, they so devoutly follow their ridiculous theories. they're all fucking ignorant cunts.
amor987654321 10 months ago
@KiLLeRxxBuNNy 'cuz nobody has EVER sworn on the bible and lied? What planet are you from?
gwcstudio 8 months ago
@gwcstudio earth?
KiLLeRxxBuNNy 7 months ago
@gwcstudio
He is from miss planet delusion.
Besides, even if someone sincerely swears something, that does not mean that what he believes in is true; he may have been fooled in believing something which is not true; I am convinced that the CIA has used its experience it had in mind manipulation to brainwash the astronauts and convince them they had actually walked on the moon.
I have listened to what they say and heard them say stupidities that I know they can't be real.
hunchbacked 5 months ago
@gwcstudio
Some examples:
- There is the well known fact that they say they could not see stars; that their camera could not catch stars can be comprehensible, but it is less comprehensible that they could not see them with their own eyes.
hunchbacked 5 months ago
@gwcstudio
There are also less known facts, but which betray them for me:
- The fact that they say that there was an alarm because the computer received "too much data"; this is totally laughable, for a computer always receives the same amount of data; it may be stuck for other reasons, but not for receiving "too much data".
hunchbacked 5 months ago
@gwcstudio
- The fact that the CM's pilot could see the LM in the distance as a small shining object does not make sense either, for, when the LM leaves the CM, it starts reducing its horizontal speed (initially the orbital speed of the CM, that is around 6000km/h) for it must land on the moon with a null horizontal speed; that means that in fact, when the LM is at a certain distance from the CM, it is behind the CM, and the CM can't see it.
hunchbacked 5 months ago
I am thinking pj has left the building.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
What do they get out of believing this hoax is people who blindly believe what they want to be true
LLnuLLy 1 year ago
Please recruit some film students to help you make this information look slick like all the fake ass hoax videos. The hoax believer has no patience to sit in a class like this and get real information. That is the exact reason they believe the hoax. Whoever makes the best video about it, they believe. I enjoy this and appreciate the info, it won't make the difference without better production.
Haplotype0 1 year ago 2
@Haplotype0 - It wouldn't matter if this message had the best production values, moon landing deniers would still deny because its their faith based around the conspiracy theories they believe. Quite frankly they are mentally deficient lacking basic logic skills.
mddawson1 1 year ago
Please clear this up for all these idjits who want to believe EVERYTHING is a HOAX. Goddamn, how many hoaxes do you encounter in an average day 0. I think it is this weak new generation who can't believe anyone can get anything done because they can't get anything done. It is sad.
Haplotype0 1 year ago
sound level/zoom fail
thedayitriedtodie 1 year ago
It was impossible to put a man on the Moon in 1969. Your laptop has 100,000 times more computer power than the Apollo space craft and mission control at Houston combined, at that time. Can you go to the moon in a 2002 Ford Taurus? Of course not. That simple car had 10.000 times the technology and computer power of Apollo. It was faked to make us look like the ultimate world power. Afterall, we can't do it now- we couldn't do it then.
neilx13 1 year ago
@neilx13 Exactly how much computing power is required to put man on the moon? Enough to reach & land on the moon which is what they had in 1969.
You are resorting to the logical fallacy Argument from Incredulity where you cannot comprehend how they did it so they didn't. I have to tell you something - the NASA techs are smarter than you.
Here is some research for you: When were the fastest jet aircraft & fastest jet airliner designed & built?
mddawson1 1 year ago 2
@neilx13 Well said! Couldn't agree more.
greenfruitface 1 year ago
@greenfruitface
''Couldn't agree more.''
Then you are just one more to join the ignorant minority.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow No, I'm not joining the "ignorant minority". It is your opinion that I'm doing that. Everyone has an opinion, and no one is right or wrong. It's all "maybe". And by the way, why be such a dick, leaving borderline rude comments to someone you don't even know? You don't know anything about me, but you still find the time and energy to leave a negative comment on youtube, directed toward me. Good luck dude, nice job.
greenfruitface 1 year ago
@greenfruitface
''and no one is right or wrong''
Still wrong. Your opinion is wrong, becausyou state it as fact. Your ''opinion'' is based on ignorance. I know that from your uneducated posts. I challange you to prove otherwise. On WHAT evidence do you base your opinion?
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
Comment removed
greenfruitface 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow Haha...you crack me up! In my reply, I said "..IT'S ALL MAYBE." You somehow chose to ignore that. But anyway. You have your opinion, I have mine. And I LOVE your toughguy/narrow-minded challenge: "I challenge you to prove otherwise." Ooooh!! Well, sorry, I haven't been to the moon. You? Also, I don't argue with negative people. That's your hobby, apparently. So, SO lame. Please: get a hobby. Also, if you reply to this again, it PROVES you are a dickhead. Good day :D
greenfruitface 1 year ago
@greenfruitface
''Also, if you reply to this again, it PROVES you are a dickhead.''
Still wrong. The only thing YOUR post ''proves'' is you have no idea what constitutes ''proof''. You originally said, ''Couldn't agree more'' to @neilx13, who said, ''It was impossible to put a man on the Moon in 1969.'' There is NO ''maybe'' about that. My ''tough guy/narrow minded challenge'' is intended to get you to do some basic research. THAT part is up to you.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow DICKHEAD.
greenfruitface 1 year ago
@greenfruitface
''DICKHEAD''
Nice. Now I'm your favorite meal...
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow You can't prove a negative monkeyboy. What evidence do you base your absolutely infallible knowledge as to man's strolls upon the lunar surface? Did your mom tell you about it? Oh, you saw it on the TV. Do you believe in Santy Clause as well? Hopefully he brings you a brain for Christmas this year or at least the ability think for yourself.
pecjames 1 year ago
@pecjames
''What evidence do you base your absolutely infallible knowledge as to man's strolls upon the lunar surface?''
Let me see...how about over 800 pounds of Moon rocks, personal testimonies, tracking of the missions by many independant observers, the fact that we COULD, and pictures of the mission remnants by JAXA and the LRO?
What makes you have ANY reasonable doubt about that?
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow Well, 800 pounds of moon rocks proves only that 800 pounds of something exists, I have no knowledge of any independent observers reporting anything, no evidence exists that proves we COULD penetrate the Van Allen radiation belt safely and a simple time study of the alleged lunar photos suggests that inadequate time existed to perform all the experiments and wandering about AND taking all the pictures. Those things all raise reasonable doubts.
pecjames 1 year ago
@pecjames
''Well, 800 pounds of moon rocks proves only that 800 pounds of something exists''
Well to the thousands of scientists that have studied them for over 40 years and have ALL concluded they could only have come from the SURFACE of the Moon, that ''something'' is pretty obvious. I find that a fairly valid proof. YOUR objection?
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow Thousands of scientists also said heavier than air flight was impossible. Thousands of scientists are funded by government grants as well. Most people are bright enough not to bite the hand that feeds them.
pecjames 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pecjames
''Thousands of scientists also said heavier than air flight was impossible. Thousands of scientists are funded by government grants as well.''
First sentence is irrelevent. Thousands of scientists will now say such flight IS possible. The two positions do NOT cancel the truth.
Second sentence infers a ludicrous grand conspiracy among all nations that have studied the Moon rocks. What proof have you for that? Mere conjecture, I am expecting.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow Not mere conjecture, awesome conjecture. Again, there is no way to prove a negative; it's impossible. Just like traveling to the moon in a tinfoil spaceship is impossible.
pecjames 1 year ago
@pecjames
''Not mere conjecture, awesome conjecture''
In your own warped mind, perhaps, but you have NO facts, NO evidence, JUST conjecture. Be it awesome, mind-boggling, or weak asw hell, it is still ""merely'' conjecture. Conjecture cannot replace ''eveidence''. Ask any court of law.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow Speaking of courts of law, you should see: Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008) and others RE Wikipedia being roundly rejected as a source of information. As to evidence, you have provided none. Not one scrap. Every bit you've regurgitated is unsubstantiated hearsay, second hand or easily impeachable as being given by those with a vested interest in said evidence being true. I need not supply evidence, you, the accuser, do.
pecjames 1 year ago
@pecjames
''I need not supply evidence, you, the accuser, do.''
Handwaving the evidence provided by NASA does NOT refute it, no matter how much you wish it could. As far as ''accuser'', I am accusing no one of anything other than you of your own ignorance. You continue to supply all the proof I need for THAT.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pecjames
''As to evidence, you have provided none. Not one scrap.''
Yes, I have. Specifically, ''astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html''
Any OTHER lies you wish to pollute the web with?
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@pecjames
''I have no knowledge of any independent observers reporting anything''
WIki ''Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings'' and look at the glut of information. WHY don't YOU bother to check ANY of this out before you make such ludicrous claims?
''no evidence exists that proves we COULD penetrate the Van Allen radiation belt safely''
Where did you get YOUR ''evidence''? Dosimeter read outs, and Van Allen's testimony concerning the VABs are good proof they COULD.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow HAAAAA!!!! Wikipedia is your source???? HAAAAAA!!!! You might as well say your grandma told you so.
Thanks for the laughs monkeyboy. According to my whoopsiemeter, it's time to move on to a more intelligent conversation. Wikipedia, that's so awesome.
pecjames 1 year ago
@pecjames
''HAAAAA!!!! Wikipedia is your source????''
Nice rebuttal. Wiki was just a pointer where you could use their references to find the original sources (i.e., ''astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html''). Because you choose to laugh this off rather than do any of your own research, or provide any credible rebuttle, just shows how content you are to remain ignorant.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow Thank you, it was a nice rebuttal. I'm glad you took the time to compliment me on it.
Wikipedia is a pseudo-encyclopedia sourced by people like you and it is therefore completely laughable to attempt to use it in any way in a real argument. By the way, ignorant refers to someone not having certain knowledge or information; I disagree with your position. This does not make me ignorant, simply your antagonist in the extant discussion.
pecjames 1 year ago
@pecjames
''ignorant refers to someone not having certain knowledge or information''
I am glad you are not ignorant about what I am saying about your knowledge (or rather, lack of) irn refgards to the Moon landings. I also see you completely ignored the fact that the sources on Wiki CAN be verified (or not). It just takes a little effort.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow I wouldn't waste a second of time checking anything on wiki. It's an even bigger waste of time than bandying words with you.
pecjames 1 year ago
@pecjames
''I wouldn't waste a second of time checking anything''
I believe this shortened version is more truthful.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pecjames
''It's an even bigger waste of time than bandying words with you.''
Does this mean you are running away?
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pecjames
''a simple time study of the alleged lunar photos suggests that inadequate time existed to perform all the experiments and wandering about AND taking all the pictures''
''Simple'' is the word. The number of photos have been shown to be easily accounted for, considering some were double shots, many were rapid sequence panoramas and there were ofter two astronauts taking the pictures. Been watching one too many U-tube videos, instead of real research?
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow No, they haven't. Snapping a focused and posed picture every 30 seconds would tend to cut into experiment time. They wouldn't even have time for a sip of Tang.
pecjames 1 year ago
@pecjames
''Snapping a focused and posed picture every 30 seconds would tend to cut into experiment time. They wouldn't even have time for a sip of Tang.''
Pure, uneducated conjecture on your part. I, NASA and photgraphy experts have no plroblem with the FACT they were able to accomplish this work. You, of course, believe yo know more than the experts, yet cannot provide anything beyond conjecture.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@pecjames "They wouldn't even have time for a sip of Tang." CLASSIC.
greenfruitface 1 year ago
@pecjames -- No. A simple time study does NOT "suggest inadequate time existed to perform all the experiments and wandering about and taking all the pictures."
The timeline is very well documented. And sufficient time certainly DID exist for all the activities that were performed and documented.
Do you use anything other than your own imagination as a source? Or do you consider your imagination to be a more reliable source than Wikipedia?
nesokretep 1 year ago
@pecjames- Also, I am curious about one thing and I'd like to get the opinion of a hoax-theory promoter on it.
It is extremely easy, given a decent knowledge of physics and understanding of basic math, to prove that people such as David Percy, Marcus Allen, and Bart Sibrel provide fraudulent "evidence" in favor of the hoax-theory.
Given that they do, in fact, lie to promote their theory, I am wondering:
If Apollo really was a "hoax" why do you think "experts" feel the need to lie to prove it?
nesokretep 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pecjames
''the ability think for yourself.''
We all have that ability, you just confuse yours with your own inferiority comples.
P.S. Forgot to add all the pictures and film from their missions.
Monkeyboysdontknow 1 year ago
@Monkeyboysdontknow That's complex, with an "X".
pecjames 1 year ago
@neilx13 -- You're an idiot.
You can't go to the moon in a Ford Taurus mostly because it doesn't have a seven million pound thrust rocket launching it up into space. It has nothing to do with the car's computer.
It was pretty obvious to anyone who actually saw a Saturn V rocket that the thing was a LOT bigger than any booster we have today.
It existed.
It worked.
A hundred thousand people saw it lift off from Florida ... in person.
It sent the Apollo spacecraft to the moon.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@neilx13 first your point about the Ford Taurus is shit because that was designed to go on road, the LM was made to go to the moon. Who said "we can't do it now". Yes, we can do it FYI, there is just no point spending millions of tax dollars to go to a place we have already been. going back=waste of money. People cite the technology needed to go to the moon as the most important part. the significant factor in achieving a landing was being EXTREMELY precise. we had the technology to do so.
amor987654321 10 months ago
@amor987654321 The Taurus thing is an "analogy" that was taken from a Ford ad about the 2004 Ford Taurus having 26x the computer power that Apollo used to supposedly go to the moon. It was the director of NASA that said moon travel is impossible because "it would be cruel to subjet humans to such a large amount of radiation" and "they could not possibly live through it". Sorry, you need to do a little research before you believe what you government tells you- I know- I used to work for them.
sethb80 10 months ago
@sethb80 Yes, i am aware of what an analogy is, i was just highlighting the irrelevance of it. Although the computers were shit by today's standard, they had the capabilities that were needed to get there. And yeah, don't assume i haven't done research. Dr. Van allen himself said that the belts wouldn't pose a threat to manned space travel. The longest exposure to radiation when traveling through the belts was approx 2 hours during Apollo 14, not enough to cause radiation sickness.
amor987654321 10 months ago
@sethb80 btw, the radiation in the belts is particle radiation, and perhaps one of the best shields for this are light metals such as aluminum and also plastics, both were abundant in the spacecraft. The construction of the CSM on the apollo missions consisted of many layers of protection. inner and outer protective layers, layers of mylar etc etc. common misconception that it is absolutely impossible to travel through the belts and escape radiation sickness.
amor987654321 10 months ago
@sethb80 Oh and also, I'm extremely sorry, i should apologize for my comments. Any sort of scientific backing becomes irrelevant and means nothing as you, in fact, have worked for the government and quoted one man.
amor987654321 10 months ago
why do I keep getting An error occured, please try again later on most videos on youtube now?
Theris1011 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
YouTube HoaxTards are sheeple, brainwashed to distribute Russian propaganda that the moon landings were faked so the Russians don't look so bad.
teddysalad65 1 year ago
2010 and Nasa says the following
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Cosmic rays are so dangerous and so poorly understood that people are unlikely to get to Mars or even back to the moon until better ways are found to protect astronauts, experts said on Monday.
"Given today's knowledge and today's understanding of radiation protection, to put someone out in that type of environment would violate the current requirements that NASA has."
retired space shuttle astronaut James van Hoften
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@nasafakedit - If deniers had any brains they wouldn't be deniers. How long were the Apollo flights? How long would it take to get to Mars? In the term "radiation exposure" note the word exposure. Why do techs in x-ray labs stand behind shielding whilst patients get direct exposure? Time numb-nut. I truly wonder how you can survive with only 2 functioning brain cells.
mddawson1 1 year ago 2
@mddawson1
the brainwashed human monkey
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@nasafakedit - we know you are and sympathise - thats why we are trying to educate you.
mddawson1 1 year ago
@mddawson1 take your ritalin kid
nasafakedit 1 year ago
bla bla bla and still no evidence for a real moonlanding. They can only ridicule the so called conspiracy theorists. SHOW EVIDENCE if you want to proof the landing was real.
GreanGrow 1 year ago
@GreanGrow there is plenty of evidence - film, photos, Soviet tracking data, independent reception of Apollo broadcasts, moon rocks. What more do you want - NASA to fly you there???
mddawson1 1 year ago
@mddawson1
fake moonrocks confirmed by Dutch Govt
fake videos
fake pictures confirmed by Jan Lundberg from hasselblad
LMAO @ independent reception
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@nasafakedit Do some research about the Dutch moonrocks - they were given by a US senator, not NASA so there is doubt they were moon rocks. They were held by a Dutch politicians family for many years so we cannot verify what they handed over to the museum was what they were given. There are many doubts about this rock but not because of NASA. Independent reception of an Apollo mission: ww w. svengrahn. pp .se/trackind/ Apollo17/APOLLO17. htm
mddawson1 1 year ago
More dislikes than likes
hmmm? wonder why - could it be that it is totally one sided?
Sherlocksmartertwin 1 year ago
boring
caioton 1 year ago
it is a hoax because it showed the american flag on the moon and the flag was waving like it was being hit by air but that is not possible in the moon because of the gravity
FR00b2u 1 year ago
@FR00b2u The flag was twisted into the ground & unrolled (it had a wire along the top edge). Without an atmosphere to slow it down it took longer to stop waving. Seriously why don't you do a bit of research on wikipedia rather than idiot conspiracy theorists website.
mddawson1 1 year ago
Jeesh, talking to a moon haoxer is like trying to talk with a goat. Non-parallel shadows, VanAllen belts, no stars, waving flags... You'd think the Lunar Recon Orbiter photos of EVERY Apollo landing site would shut them up - after all, they've been screaming for years to point the Hubble at the moon and snap those very same pictures. But now, they say the LRO images are all fake and PhotoShopped, too. God, we're doomed. It's "The Curse of the Shitheads" starring Bart Sibrel, Coming Soon!
hibob418 1 year ago 6
@hibob418
Obviously, we went to the moon. The flag waves more because there is less air resistance than it would immersed in a gaseous atmosphere. The LRO images are added proof. There is no question we went to the moon.
However, the lunar artifact question need not be smeared with the lack of logic. In fact, what you call transparency - (release of the LRO images) I call DELAYED transparency.
Real transparency is ALL of the LRO data in real time. Not six months later.
socratic1968 1 year ago
@hibob418 These morons have never heard of vanishing points. EVERY FUCKING SHADOW CAST BY THE SUN IS NON PARALLEL DEPENDING ON YOU POINT OF VIEW !!! If you look from above they are, from the ground they are not! Take a fucking picture of a road stretching to the horizon. Are the lines parallel now you morons??? Conspiracy nuts are dumber than a cracked floor tile...
TheBrazillianAtheist 1 year ago
@hibob418 Well said. What do they get out of believing this is a hoax? I don't get how people can call hoax when this is one of the best documented achievements in history. It is so hard talking to people who blindly believe what they want to be true. I've concluded gen y is so likely to believe things are hoaxes because they cannot fathom how anyone can get something done. The reason is because they cannot get anything done besides beating the newest Super Mario game.
Haplotype0 1 year ago
@hibob418 .ANSWER THIS?WHY GO TO THE MOON THEN LEAVE ITAND DONT GO BACK?THENTHEY START UP THE SPACE SHUTTLE SERVICE. IT JUST SEEMS ARSE ABOUT BACKWARDS.THERE NOT GOING FORWARD BUT BACKWARDS.THEY SHOULD OF DONE THE SHUTTLE SERVICE FIRST THEN THE MOON.BUT NO THEY WENT ALL OUT TO THE MOON.HOW DID THEY MANAGE THE RADIATION?OR SHALL THE UP TO DATE ASTRONAUTS JUST USE PRE 60S SPACE SUITS THERE FAR BETTER.....AND EVEN NOW.ARE YOU TELLING ME N.A.S.A TELL NOTHING BUT THE WHOLE TRUTH?THEY LIE.AND WHY LIE?
TONYPARAMOTOR 8 months ago
@TONYPARAMOTOR WHY GO TO THE MOON THEN LEAVE ITAND DONT GO BACK?
Only politicians can send men to the moon. The funding to NASA was cut back after '67
To maintain a more lengthy presence on the Moon is a very expensive proposition. Besides the scientific data retrieved what would be the economic benefit?
TheEntropyEpoch 8 months ago
@TONYPARAMOTOR First of all, TRY LEARNING TO WRITE A COHERENT SENTENCE. Jeesh. Calm down.
But you raise a good point, in the late 50's, the natural outgrowth of the X-15 and X-20 Dyno-Soar projects would have been a shuttle-like spaceplane, and many in the AirForce, etc wanted to go that route. But because of the Soviet "threat,"and to hurry up, it was decided to launch capsule-like spacecraft on our existing ICBM's, the Redstone & Atlas, and later the Titan II. (more)
hibob418 8 months ago
@hibob418 IS THIS QUESTION .....COHERENT ENOUGH FOR YOU EINSTEN...ANSWER THIS IF U CAN. DO YOU TRUST N.A.S. A YES OR NO..........ITS ABIT LIKE SAYING DO YOU TRUST THE USA GOVERMENT? AND IF YOU DO.THEN YOUR A IDIOT.I ASKED YOU FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SUBJECT AND YOU NEVER REALLY ANSWER THEM.U GO AROUND THE ANSWER WITH TOTAL B.S
TONYPARAMOTOR 8 months ago
@TONYPARAMOTOR Dude, I'm perfectly capable of answering any question about project Apollo you might have, including the radiation issues, but you already have your mind made up about NASA, the government, the CIA, and most likely Obama's birth certificate, so what's the point?
But, I lived on Florida's Space Coast for 12 years, covered the shuttle launches for 2 media outlets, and I know quite a few people at NASA. They're some of the smartest and dedicated people I've ever met. (more)
hibob418 8 months ago
@TONYPARAMOTOR They're certainly smarter than any hoax proponent I've ever spoken to. So, I have no reason not to trust NASA (which by your logic makes me an idiot). But like I said, you already have your mind made up, so talking to you is a waste of time. You don't even have the requisite knowledge about the subject if you're still hung up about the VanAllen belts. Those concerns regarding Apollo were debunked years ago.
Don't have to believe me, get off the web and read a book on the subject.
hibob418 8 months ago
@TONYPARAMOTOR Then JFK made the challenge to go to the moon by the end of the decade, and it was an all out race with the Russians for the first lunar landing.
Then Nixon & Congress cut the program short after Apollo 17 and the American public at large hasn't supported spending the money to back to the moon, or Mars or wherever. None of this is new, and it's now all about politics and money. As far as radiation, I could do 20 paragraphs on why it wasn't a problem, better you read it yourself.
hibob418 8 months ago
The moon landing hoax thing is a red herring.
The question that I have is about the alleged structures on the moon. And, why so many orbiters - japanese, chinese, indian, and now nasa's LRO.
Yet so few images released.
It seems odd that so few images have been released, its almost as if there is a clearinghouse so that each nation can get their story straight before they let the image out.
Or, maybe not. We don't know, but withholding images seems suspicious.
socratic1968 2 years ago
Only the LRO has cameras capable of imaging the Apollo landers. All the others can only resolve 10 metres to 1 image pixel. The Apollo landers are 8 metres in diameter so will not show up in photos. Even the LRO can just make them out. Photographing Apollo sites was not a major concern for any of these missions.
mddawson1 2 years ago
I am very aware of that. However, there are reports of structures on the moon in specific sites identified by George Leonard, Alan Sturm and others.
Doesn't it seem a bit odd to you that so few images have been released to the public? Especially from so-called free countries like the US and Japan.
socratic1968 2 years ago
@socratic1968
They're not witholding anything, the images are readily available. More moon hoax nonsense.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
this is so boring. its obviously a hoax
YoungKlarkKent 2 years ago
No YoungKK, this is not a hoax. And yes, this video is boring.
Rob260259 2 years ago
I'm convinced the moon landing is a hoax. I do a lot of post-production and it looks just like that. even the diehards must be slightly suspicious at NASA loosing the original footage? when did that happen last?
YoungKlarkKent 2 years ago
Why would there be suspicions about the lost footage?
Is there something wrong with the existing copies of it?
Hardly matters now anyway, as the existing footage has now been remastered. It's clear enough now to see the faces of the astronauts.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago 3
@YoungKlarkKent Post production work today is much more sophisticated than what was available in 1969. There was no digital technology for image processing then, no computers available to the public for image processing at all, so faking anything would be much more difficult and/or obvious. I remember when computers in the late eighties, early nineties (Macs anyway) first had 32 bit color. Before that the best you got was at most 16 bit and usually 8 bit.
Darrylizer1 1 year ago
I'm convinced the moon landing is a hoax. I do a lot of post-production and it looks just like that. even the diehards must be slightly suspicious at NASA loosing the original footage? when did that happen last? at the very least something went wrong or they decided to re-create what they didn't capture.
YoungKlarkKent 2 years ago
YoungKK, 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 familiar with the geologic studies of celestial bodies?
Impossible to do.
Rob260259 2 years ago 9
@Rob260259
it didn't: many people working for nasa immediately understood it; the average person wouldn't have had anything to compare it to just as I didn't when I was a kid until later when came to understand certain principles. The most obvious is that the lunar take off happened without a burn which would have created an exaust plume half the size of the module. But what average rural person (most populations were still in the country) with a grade 3 education those days would know that.
only1too 1 year ago
@only1too
My old granddad shouted "FAKE!" when I showed him my first cellphone some years ago.
About the ascent plume: watch?v=SAfJkYTkQZk
Rob260259 1 year ago
I recently started work in records management & I have identified lots of lost files, etc. Initially NASA wasn't going to broadcast the landing, it was pretty much an afterthought. Also any post-production equipment you use would be scifi to people back then. Ask yourself this question - is there anything in the Apollo footage that would require faking, that is physically impossible?
mddawson1 2 years ago
Im probably gonna get like tons of replys to what i say, but i believe that the trip to the moon was a hoax, i mean come on, unparrelel shadows which means there was more than one light, i.e artifical lighting, day 1 and day 2 had the same area althought they said they were 2 miles away, even if they were to go to the moon, the couldnt pass the radiation belt & the sun was producing the most radiation ever recorded,people on earth were affected by the suns radiation, so the trip was a hoax
ameen345 2 years ago
All of your claims have been addressed and easily dismissed, please do a little bit of research before making such fuckass stupid statements. The Apollo missions were real grow up queer.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
Perfectly parallel shadows would only occur if the moons surface was perfectly flat which I am sure you will agree it isn't. Also there are 2 light sources on the moon, the sun & Earth. Think about a full moon at night, it casts shadows. Now think about the Earth as seen from the moon. It would be bigger & brighter than a full moon seen from Earth. Van Allen who discovered the belts says it would have only given them a years worth of radiation that we get on Earth.
mddawson1 2 years ago
Mddawson, even if the surface was perfectly flat, the shadows would not be parallel when viewed toward or away from the sun. Perspective causes them to appear to converge at the horizon.
This is frequently visible on earth and there are many pictures online showing it. HBs don't seem to have any aptitude or common sense at all about natural phenomena. Kaysing called this one of the strongest arguments against Apollo. To a third grader, maybe.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
I was thinking of the examples HBs show which are usually shortish shadows cast by 2 close objects. These are usually too short to show convergence. Another aspect of moon photos HBs don't understand is that they lack the visual cues that show distance as in photos on Earth. Hills in moon photos appear to be close but could be 100 km away due to the lack of atmospheric haze.
mddawson1 2 years ago
Mddawson: Great point! I have pointed out this business of how difficult it is to judge distance -- how easy it is to GROSSLY under-estimate, but I never applied it to converging shadows.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
Your claims have been addressed ad nauseam and you are apparently unaware of those explanations.
Shadows don't appear parallel on earth, either. It's called perspective and surface irregularity. No knowledgeable, thinking person would make this argument because they would realize that multiple lighting sources will cause multiple shadows -- from EVERY object.
The scenes you are talking about WERE, in fact, a fraud -- committed by Bart Sibrel. The audio record proves that he cheated.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
Cont'd. You can get solar data from a couple of different reliable sources online. Clearly you didn't check the data before making that statement. Now you know that hoax believers lie -- or pass on others' lies, like you just did. The sun was NOT particularly active during ANY of the Apollo missions. And if it was, NASA people know the dangers far better than you or any other HB.
Van Allen himself, addressed the objections of HBs concerning radiation. He said they were "nonsense."
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
thank you for showing such concrete proof of whatever it is that you are trying to say bravo i am convinced. hahaha
rrhly 2 years ago
Rrhly, are you another Humanmonkey?
Rob260259 2 years ago
Rob, that was "hunanmonkey".
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
Ah... is she a derivative of hunamnonkey..?
Rob260259 2 years ago
LOL...No, that one was hunamnomkey.
I wonder how many combinations he has used.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
Thank you for the upload. Looking through your comments, I take some measure of solace that people actually researched and pointed out the glaring inaccuracies in the moon hoax conspiracy theory. You are well informed and articulate. If people wish to believe we didn't land on the moon then they clearly have not bothered to research and mores the shame on them.
Thank you again for a good reprieve from the rampant idiocy.
danschaoticmind 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
now, this is one of many pathetic loser, he even have nothing to show ppl on screen which proof apollo moon landing!.
loser,idiot, empty brain !!
he just, bla bla bla.......
hadiway 2 years ago
Nor do you have anything to show which indicates the moon landing WAS a hoax.
Heres something for you to consider:
If the moon landing was a hoax, why did the Russians NEVER cry fowl?
danschaoticmind 2 years ago
Because they didn't see a bird?
(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Yes, the Soviets monitored EVERYTHING we put into space -- for obvious reasons. They received the audio and video from the moon by aiming their receivers AT THE MOON. The only explanation experienced HBs can come up with is that they were in cahoots with our hoax. Yeah, right.
After considering this fact, HBs look utterly stupid when they persist. It alone, is absolute proof that we went.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
Jarrah told me a while back something about a certain grain, or other produce that was severly running low in Russia and the US was giving it to them, in return, the Soviet Union would keep their mouths shut about the alleged hoax.
If I remember correcly, Jarrah said this is something Rene discovered while researching for "NASA Mooned America."
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
Tremor, that deal was in the summer of 1972. The Soviets had been watching our Apollo program for three years at that point. Is Jarrah actually using that deal to support his hoax claims?
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
Well, I didn't know what the story was.
TremorHellborn 2 years ago
first and foremost:
LOL!
I agree wholeheartedly with you. In fact, I have made the same assertions time after time that the Ruskies (What? I loved the right stuff) Did have the ability to monitor what we were doing. If we had not gone to the moon, then who would have said something? The Ruskies thats who. Thanks for adding a little bit to elaborate. I was not planning on clarifying further because the poster never even bothered to respond.
Did you watch the ares 1-x launch?
danschaoticmind 2 years ago
Not only did they have the ability, but you can be certain that they watched with keen interest, ANYTHING we put into space -- as they were very distrusting of us and very afraid of our ICBM ability.
In fact, I'll bet we had to inform them in advance of every rocket launch we ever made, just because WE feared THEIR hair-trigger attitude toward nukes.
Astrobrant2 2 years ago
Indeed. Thus the reason why we announced everything we did at the time frame.
Granted the other half was to showcase to the country what we were able to accomplish with our space program.
danschaoticmind 2 years ago
A documentry entitled "Nukes in Space" tells of just how out of hand things became, especially during the Cuban missle crisis.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
Hey, mddawson1. I'm interested in your videos, but I have terrible speakers. Could you tell me which part and section debunks David Groves's analysis of the lunar landing photographs? The ones that have to do with lighting and angles and all that good stuff. It would be much appreciated. Thanks.
User1018828 2 years ago 2
fucking trash
KRIEGi556 2 years ago
this sucks ass, if this indeed proves that the hoax is a lie ... I don't have the patience to watch it
dantheman1507 2 years ago
Well now, it appears to have gone a bit quiet around here. I wonder why. :-)
MTMind2 2 years ago
Boo the guy is using windows, he's lost me already.
SPAG22 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake. todays news-lol sowhat else is new-big surprise.you assholes-we never went to the moon.
ed11561 2 years ago