I saw the thumbnail of the video. I noticed you consider the hammer feather drop as evidence????? Watch from the Earth to the Moon and realize how stupid your little moon landing is...
Oh come, if I just think about the launch of a 110 meter, 2000 ton rocket! Do you hoaxers believe that they build and launch it just to mislead millions of people, then forget about some stupid shadows and reflections? This Moon hoax shit is just about business and making money. Project Apollo is doubtlessly the greatest adventure in human history!
Every single hoax contention from Bill Kaysing forward has been throughly debunked so, why bother with one bit of newly discovered evidence when thousands have been squashed entirely already.
At what point does the conspiracy nut, who wouldnt understnd the science that describes any particulars anyway, what point is this ignorant nut satisfied and how far does science go to make them happy? It never seems to end and its a pure lack of willingness to research facts.
US Govt can't cover up tons of much "smaller" conspiracies, yet they were able to cover up such huge and elaborate hoax involving hundreds of people at least, and spanning 30+ years? And NO ONE has ever sold them out, it's just the conspiracy nuts and their "proofs" in some botched photographs?
@VeryVeryMeanBastard Simply impossible. For any of these 20 something twits buying into this mystery meat pie I would say go and hang around in a science or astronomy forum for equal amounts of time and hone your thinking skills there...
For you will be absolutely clowned with real science each time you open your mouth and you will learn a valuable lesson. Think before you talk!
Yes but i would like to know how did that small module suceed to slow down trough moons gravitiy on landing and we know that WAST amounts of fuel is needed for rocket to escape earths gravitiy....
Useing rocket power in space where is only one molecule of matter to a 1m2 rquires even more fuel for trust trough a vacum.
REALITY = Module would be accelerated by moons gravity and crash.
"If people decide they're going to deny the facts of history and the facts of science and technology, there's not much you can do with them. For most of them, I just feel sorry that we failed in their education."
Yes I have, including the ones where the Hubble telescope takes the amazing color pictures of outer space from outer space. You do not know what I may or may not be able to do cause you don't know the first thing about me you little prick!! And I ain't talking about how hard the LLM hit the ground dumb ass, I'm talking about the fire coming out of the thrusters blasting the moon dust out of the way of where it landed!!
If the dust would continue into the ground for several meters the thrust would have surely produced a more visible crater (although the engine was switched off some meters above ground). As you can see from the photographic record, the dust is only a few centimeters thick and the surface beneath it is rather compact and dense, hence, no crater. Its always amazing how you guys stick to your initial (wrong) assumption and fail to understand what's actually going on... so funny.
@amontaiyagala The engine in apollo 11 were not switched off metre's above the surface. There is footage of the landing and you can clearly see the engines are still on as it's landing. But no crater, and no dust on the landing gear etc.
@BLAGASPANTS If this was faked then it must've been extremely good fake, since millions of people saw the rocket in the sky and it was suddenly nowhere to be found during the moon-landing.
Also, how could they possibly even want to take such a risk?
If they wanted to fool the entire world then they would almost certainly have been spotted in the sky "as they were circling the earth" and be ashamed forever.
@BLAGASPANTS Look closely to the LEM, you will notice some wires hanging under the landing pads. Those are sensors. When the LEM pilot said "contact light", those wires were on the surface, but the landing gear was still a good 1-2 meters above the surface, and the engine was even higher. On "contact light", the engine was turned off, thus minimizing the damage of the lunar surface
This is Really, Really Bad...The sky would be rocking with color and stars, not those pathetic little 3 white dots. Other dummies like you say you can't see the stars cause of the sunlight, so which is it? Where is the blast crater from the lunar module landing? I don't have enough characters left to go on, this video is far from Proof!!
The evidence of a hoax is crushing. I posted a partial summary of it on a science forum. To see it, google "The Naked Scientist". In the "New Theories" section there's a thread entitled "Did we land on the moon?". The post is on page 15. It's the 7th one from the top.
Think hard for a second, I know you might not be able to do it, but have you EVER seen stars in any video of human spaceflight, NASA or not, ANYWHERE?!
Also, if the LLM hit the surface of the moon hard enough to leave a crater...anyone inside would be killed...
The sky should not be 'rocking' with stars. Because the exposure time used on the cameras was not long enough to show them.
The bright sunlit lunar surface only needs a short exposure of a small fraction of a second and a small aperture so as to not over expose it. And the stars are just too feint to show up at those settings.
watch?v=WmPFv7S7My4
That shows the difference in exposure times needed.
Take for example that series of images in that video.
The moon only needed an exposure time of one five-thousandth of a second to expose properly, but the stars needed an exposure time of about one second before the camera is able to capture them.
The glare from the sunlit lunar surface is vastly brighter than the dim stars.
Oh whatever man, If moon landings were real there would not be all of these hoax theories going on now. How Bout nasa aim the hubble at the moon and take some really go pictures of all the moon landing evidence left on the moon from all the apollo missions? Let me guess, they can't take these photos because of some stupid lighting and film exposure reasons right!!
No I have not, and neither have you! I disagree with the hubble not being able to take a good clear picture of a man made object on the moons surface. But if that is true, why not send up a little remote control car with a camera on it like the one they supposedly sent to mars and let it drive around and take the pictures of all that stuff? The Earth is only 239,000 miles away from the moon, so the hubble is way closer than a quarter of a million miles.
Google "David Icke" some time. Its amazing the rubbish people take completely seriously.
"why not send a little car"
Or even send an orbiter to image the lunar surface in far greater detail, such as the LRO which has mapped the lunar surface in great detail and taken some nice images of the Apollo landers.
239000 is a quarter of a million, that 11000 miles makes little difference.
At that distance it has a resolution of about 60 metres per pixel. Unlike the 0.5 m resolution of the LRO.
Obviously theres none when Houston records their inital statement but again obviously the delay starts after their statement to the moon then theres a delay before the reply. Its a conversational thing and being recorded in Houston doesn't affect this. This is straight forward to anyone surely?
It doesn't matter that it's recorded in Houston, because the delay affects the responce time to the communication. I just saw Ron Howards doco " Shadows on the Moon" and an Astronaut says if it wasn't for the Russians man wouldn't have landed on the moon for another 100 or 200 years, instead they did it before the end of the decade. Also- From the decent you see thousands of craters but from the film on the surface you don't see any, theres no picture looking into a large circular crater.
Do you agree that because recordings were done in Houston one should expect 0 s delay for ground control to reply and ca. 2.6 s for astronauts reply ?
Can you indicate one single clip with shorter delays ?
In the doco "In the Shadow of the Moon" Alan Bean points out the importance of competition for the tight time schedule of Apollo - what is your interpretation ? let me guess: astronaut claims moon landing impossible for the next 1 - 200 years?
Its 1.28 one way so it 2.56 both ways, I have seen vids where its shorter than this or no dealy at all but will have to look through them again. The Shadow moon thing- He implys that was the natural time scale. When theyre landing you can see craters absoulutely everywhere, there should be heaps of photos of them , aren't they of more relevance than all the photos of rocks and barren terrain. on those wide shots from the rovers you should see more of those "landing" craters
It is sooooo lame to claim people are crazy, especially people you have never met. They supposedly went to the moon six times in three years, and then just didn't feel like going anymore, I mean why would you. You're right, technology and expertise have taken a giant leap backward since 1969, And sure they found a way to beat the speed of light in their communications, Nixon was President at the time, and he would never be involved in anything dodgy, you're so right oh great one.
I never said you are "crazy". I said you are not able to back up your claims. It would be pretty worthless to discuss these claims without an example. I would say NO you would say YES... waste of time.
You claim the comm. delay is too short (but didn't realize recording were done in Houston?). I can only ask which clip you are talking about? There are hours without any comm. at all. I would be glad to discuss any specific example, but it is up to you to point out because it is your claim.
Jesus Christ are you retarded?, If you're going to comment or post videos on the subject of the faked moonlandings have the decency to research the fucking subject, any of the fucking Nasa clips show this lack of delay watch the fucking things. Go to Apolloarchives(.)com and look at every fucking picture you smug fuckwit. I am not your fucking substitute teacher.
Communications between Houston and Apollo exceeded the speed of light. How did they manage that?There should be a 1.28 second delay in both directions, yet there is not. Whats you answer to that oh Great one of Unquestionable Knowledge.
Funny how you came up with one question after the other but were never able to answer a single question yourself... The recording was done in Houston. That's it. It's that simple. The recording was done in Houston... Delay from Houston to Houston is... 0 s! Delay from Houston to moon is 1.3 s. Delay from Houston to the moon and for the reply back to Houston is ca. 2.6 s.
Did you even tried to think about in the first place ?
Yes smugo, and theres heaps of transmissions without that level in delay in them, so either the astronauts weren't on the moon or transmissions beat the speed of light, you decide. BTW they weren't edited because the conversations maintain their natural flow. Believe what you want, I can't see how anyone could watch Nasas own clips and not see problems.
Found some photos of visors up at apolloarchives(.) com It's supposed to be 117 degrees centigrade 242.6 farenheit during the day on the moon surely a visor protection of some kind is essential at all times. question- why does the pictures of the earth taken by the japanese sattilitte orbiting the moon differ so greatl from apollos, and yes i cam taking into account different technology.
The moon doesn't get that hot until local noon. The Apollo landings were all in the early morning local solar time precisely to avoid the heat, and also to aid visibility during landing. The pressure helmets are polycarbonate (same strong stuff CDs are made from) which blocks UV without an extra visor.
SELENE data actually matches Apollo photos quite closely. Did you see their data reprojected to match surface photos? SELENE couldn't see small rocks of course but the terrain matched exactly.
The Jomogogo is copying my comment when i told someone, possibly him, if their mother cried when the condom broke.
Sorry Jomo, I just realised your a litlle kid, you can't be more than 14, do Mum and Dad know youre so abusive on line? If they find out you might get grounded, Hows school? Those teachers can be such jerks, but one day when you grow up you show them wont you? Is "The Jomojogo" a character out of your favorite childrens book? Wait.. you might be an older retarded person...
In this film an astronaut claims to have put his visor up, why then are there no photos or film of this. People defending the moonlandings have claimed they couldn't put up their visors due to uv.
Again hills and horizon very close, why not take longer shots? And by that i dont' mean 100 metres I mean 500 to 1000.
BTW Astronauts are more excited about orange sand than Neil Armstrong was about being the first on the moon, ha ha
There are plenty of long range shots, you just don't look at them because it would destroy your argument. Do not tell your parents you think the Apollo landings were faked, they will be horrified at how weird and stupid you are.
Lunar mountains are much bigger and farther away than they look in surface pictures because there are no distance cues. No atmosphere to create haze, no trees, houses, roads, etc, to create scale. Even the astronauts who were there had trouble estimating distances.
The guy who got excited by orange soil was a professional geologist. He understood its scientific significance. Do you?
Blerp! Wrong! Atmosphere does not affect views of the horizon greatly, you can see this on your home planet earth (unless you live in a smog filled hell hole). When the astronauts move towards the "horizon" you can see that it's not far away. Armstrong commented on this in one of his many hints that the moon landings were fake. p.s one of the first rules of debating is that you can't refer to the other side as crazy, because if they are, youre crazy to debate them.
Do you live on the earth, or have you spent much time on this planet? I ask because you seem to be very unfamiliar with the properties of its atmosphere.
Mountains on the earth give many visual cues of their size and distance that are completely missing on the moon. But one cue remains: they appear largely the same in pictures taken from different locations. The same photos that hoax buffs claim prove fraud actually prove they were taken on the moon.
Do you defend the Wright Brothers? No you don't . Why? because what they did was real, and can be backed up every step of the way. Apollo was B.S so you feel you have to defend it. Anyone that has studied art knows the effect of atmosphere on ones visual experience the short ditance to the horizon in the moon pictures in film can in no way be explained by lack of atmosphere. go to the Archangel4myke channel and answer or the questions raised by those clips.
Nobody attacks the Wright brothers so I don't have to defend them. People like you do attack Apollo out of ignorance, misconceptions, politics or simple resentment of others' achievements, so that's why I feel compelled to rebut the bullshit.
I'm familiar with Archangel4myke. He's got some of the most hilariously ludicrous misinterpretations of Apollo material. E.g, during the A12 launch he heard "Yaw Program" as "Awe Program" and thought that was a program to fake the lightning strike!
You missed the point- No one attacks the Wright Brothers because everything they did is backed up by evidence , and their work was continued. Its backed up because they really did what they say they did. The reason Apollos story has so many holes in it, is because in reality they did not do what they claimed to do. If they really had done it, the next logical step would have been to build a moonbase. A4Myke has got heaps of videos and thats the bigest flaw you can mention?
No, YOU missed the point. You said I didn't defend the wright brothers. I said that's because no one attacks them. People do attack Apollo, mainly because they have zero personal experience with space travel and no understanding of physics so they misapply their earth-bound intuition. Unfortunately, space travel is a lot more expensive than air travel so the public is likely to remain personally unfamiliar with space flight. But Apollo still happened. Deal with it.
I don't have the time to waste going through every one of A4Myke's absurd misinterpretations and paranoid ravings. I happened to find his "awe program" line at random and it made me laugh out loud because I immediately knew what he had misheard.
I thought about Miss Emily Litella, Gilda Radner's character on 1970s SNL, who raved about things like "violins on TV", "the Deaf Penalty", "Presidential Erections", "Youth in Asia", "Making Puerto Rico a Steak", and so on. Gilda lives!
I've found it's really hard to get a gut-level appreciation for size and scale in Apollo surface pictures. My favorite Apollo landing site is probably Apollo 15, but because of the lack of size cues many of the pictures don't do justice to the place. In "Magnificent Desolation", Tom Hanks stuck the Statue of Liberty in Hadley Rille and flew the camera around, and the scale of the place finally came out.
A15 and A17 also got good views of their LMs looking back down from mountainsides.
I can't imagine what "hints" from Armstrong you might have been talking about, because I've never heard anything that would make me doubt his veracity.
He and Aldrin did say that the horizon seemed close and attributed it to the moon's smaller size, but I think it may simply be due to the lack of distance cues. Also, Tranquility Base was a relatively flat and featureless mare. The J-mission sites with mountains were much more visually impressive.
Yes the moon is smaller but it still doesn't explain the lack of distance in horizon shots, neither does atmosphere. go to apolloarchives(.)com and look at pictures of a crappy taped together lander which is supposed to be on the moon. Look at the Apollo 11 press conference. Calculate the speed of light to the moon and see how Houstons communications go faster than that. Impossible you say?, well if they were really on the moon then the communications beat the speed of light.
I have some experience with spacecraft design and construction. Yes, thermal blankets are often taped on. Can you tell me why that shouldn't work? Your intuition says so? There's a reason engineers go to college first.
I have never seen nor heard any superliminal Apollo communications. Neither have you. I've heard *claims* of such but they're never supported by the actual recordings.
I want the Hubble space telescope aimed at the landing sites on the moon.
If the Hubble can give us high def pics of deep space, it can certainly take high def pix of the lunar landing site, the flag, lunar rover, and anything that we used on the surface.
That will eliminate all argument over whether the U.S. actually landed men on the moon.
The Hubble has taken pictures of the moon but even it can't break out anything less than 300 feet wide. that's why you don't see pictures of small rocks, etc, taken from it or other telescopes. So simple.
That's the problem with your intuition. Your intuition says that if the Hubble can see into deep space, then it should be able to see Apollo artifacts on the moon. But your intuition is simply wrong. The artifacts are too small and too far away even for Hubble in low earth orbit.
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter IS now seeing the landing sites. And surprise, surprise, surprise, the hoaxheads are claiming its pictures are faked. No facts, NOTHING will ever change their minds.
YES, as a scientist I wouldn't expect the astronauts to waste ANY b&w or color Hasselblad film by shooting worthless pictures of blurry stars during a mission focused on the exploration of the moon. Although there is some distortion by earth atmosphere much better results were obtained using large earth-based telescopes.
BTW, NASA used UV sensitive film during Apollo 16 to capture stars and the earth which is only possible from non-earth-based locations like the moon...
The lunar laser reflectometer allows us to confirm the lunar landings...anytime. And yet some still think a moon landing was impossible--why? Critical thinking classes should be mandatory, beginning in grade school.
Indeed, if these footages would have been made yesterday they could have been easily faked and manipulated. But this was the end of the sixties people. The very beginning of video.
All this shit is fake you cant really trust any fims now a days they can be easly tampered with. The original film probably doesn't even exist anymore. For christ sake the Americans are still using Russian filter in space to say alive, Mostly because they don't how to make there own filter, basically what this filter is, is to convert piss/sweat back to drinking water to save money transporting water constantly to the satelite, they just simply don't know how the russians did it.
Still... even if you don't understand basic physics, at 0.52 on the video, when he says "significant discovery", you can see a wire holding the hammer. Yeah, you need some help to make the tricks work to impress the idiots (who then put online videos with stupid music to defend their sheeple beliefs).
The hammer falls in 1 sec. X=1/2gt2, here g=9.8/6 so X, the height, is supposed to be equal to 81 cm. On the moon, an object will fall from 81 cm to the ground in one second. So you have two options. Either the americans never went on moon, or their astronauts were dwarfs.
Your knowledge in physics is most welcome (because that's really rare among CT's). Maybe you can also point out that an object would travel 4.9 meters during 1 second free fall in earth gravity.
Using the correct fall-time of 1.3 s as seen in the video you will end up with 1.4 m for g = 1.66 m/s2 versus 8.3 m for g = 9.81 m/s2.
I would really appreciate if you could comment on the difference between 1.4 and 8.3 m...
The experience of the hammer and the feather is the greatest comical show ever. You can see the wires. By the way, just think about how it was filmed. The quality of images, various angles and so on... and think about how poor are the images you generaly could seen from space missions done nowadays. This was the moon. In 69. Image is perfect. Through Van Allen rings and 300000 kms of space. Today, 300 miles away, we still experience TV problems... look at the wires. It's just funny.
Like it or not, but Americans landed on the moon in 1969. No hoax, no wires, no studios. Just science, good engineering and a lot of courage of Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, Charles Conrad, Alan Bean, Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, David Scott, James Irwin, John Young, Charles Duke, Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt.
Why do you stop short on the astronaut salute footage? Show whole clip of him turning about & dangling a couple inches above the powdered movie set, by a wire man who slightly misjudged the length of suspension for the landing of the jump. Nice try, but the cat is out of the bag, shill. Too many of us are awake now. They shoudn't have allowed us the internet to share information & show the lies.Go back to the drawing board & come up with a more realistic false flag hoax, like an Iranian/US war.
they already proved the half way to the moon photos that they supposedly took from the moon wrong. sorry..... type in "half way to the moon just released footage" on google. Nuff said, good day, nice music though. ( =
The LRO ( Lunar Recon. Orbiter ) launches in April 2009.
It has a resolution of the lunar surface of 18"...more than enough to see lots of detail at the Apollo sites.
p.s. No earth-bound telescope would be able to make them out.... even the Hubble only has a lunar resolution of 300 ft. You have to be in lunar orbit to get definative images.
If you like the Hammer/feather experiment, have a look at " veryfunnyphil's YouTube video on the Apollo "hoax". It's decidedly British humor...so be patient while it's busy setting you up !
the hammer/feather thing can be done in your living room without a vacuum. Try it and make sure there's no breeze.
Thanks for posting this vid! I loved the pic of the laser returns. Are we actually seeing a prolonged exposure showing the actual bounceback?
The moon landing sites aren't very clear and don't mean a thing. Later this year Nasa plans on using their newly launched satellite telescope to photograph the landng zones.
The landing zones are over 100 thousand Kms away. I doubt even their new scope will be able to see anything significant. They'd have to use a lunar orbiter.
That hammer and feather is funny. You can do that at the NASA training center in their training room. Does a Vacuum sound familiar to anyone. That can be man made by the way.
More like, "if you are afraid of fantasy, stay at home in your bed". Reality is inconsistent regarding this video. They note the facts of all the conspiracy tales and twist it around back in their face so as to back up the truth. Humans do not evolve in space age. God never sent any organic life beyond this world. There is no record of it
the moon landing was fake. also, your childhood wa sfake. those people you thought were your parents,they were just actors. sorry you had to find out like this
a Slide Show ? nope... A SIDE SHOW ! they would have had a better result if they had hired chris angel, from las vegas. oh, i forgot, mr. angel has more ethics, he will say it is a magic trick and not try to pretend it is anything more. right , chris?
Sorry for you but I'm not argentinian, I just live there, I'm french and in France, we recieve education. You have to recognize that there's a little more culture and education in Europe that in USA.
I see no similarity between religion and science. Religion is your personal belief and of course you are free to believe whatever you want to. But the moon landing is about science, measurements and data...
Science is for people who can think for themselves, and are allowed to let their mind go wherever the evidence takes it. We have a greater appreciation of the wonders of the real world.
There is a video on YT which claims that the hammer and feather experiment can be replicated on earth. They try it without a vacuum and manage to, simply proving that the alleged feather is not genuine but some heavy plastic material. These guys will use every trick to convince you...
this video claims that "there was stars"... the astronauts claim that they didn't recall seeing any stars.... how do u account for that discrepancy? People jumped onto the bandwagon of the moon landings not happening at all, which there is evidence. Yet, its more than likely that the first moon landing was faked (and they had good reason), the ensuing moon landings probably happened. But we'll never know, its fun to see you hoots who actually give a shit duke it out on YouTube but hahaha noobs
the "stars" in this video are probably planets (most likley one of the gas giants), that shines so brightly that they can be seen even with a low-contrast camera...
The "stars" in the video are not planets but stars (otherwise I would have called them planets...). It's a single shot taken from the CM while orbiting the moon (Maybe this solves the discrepancy pointed out by Diabolous3x). Apart from the UV photographs interest in stars was small during the Apollo mission aimed to explore the moon.
The astronauts saw plenty of stars during their missions -- they depended on them for navigation. They just had to use instruments to see them. They couldn't see stars in the daytime with their unaided eyes for one of the very same two reasons you and I can't see stars in the daytime: the sun and sunlit terrain are simply too bright.
FINALLY, one thing that proves they were really there, Galileos theory involving a heavy weight and a light weight, I challenge ANYONE to fake this experiment on earth.
b) still no complete hi-res pics of landing sites or pics of earth from moon vantage point.
b) laser reflectors easily dropped by UNMANNED probes.
human beings simply can not pass van allen belt. easy to mind kontrol a very select few astronaughts to go along. even easier to doctor and controll data streams and images to cent come computers during the day.
And trust me theres hi res pics you just have to look for them, and as your last bit of "proof" goes how could it be easy? I feel no need to elaborate anymore.
"human beings simply can not pass van allen belt."
"Van Allen" is a big word hoax dorks hear on tv and pretend to understand. But when pressed they prove they know nothing of radiation and make idiots of themselves. Just once I'd like to meet a hoax nerd who actually bothered to ask a radiation specialist before making an idiot out of himself.
For the record, the 3 most dangerous types of radiation can be blocked with plastic.
Whoever claims the moonlanding to be fake sure needs to take a physics class. For goodness sake in order to fake it they'd have take rocks and dust from the moon fly them here set it up in a set, pump all the air out. Then get ionize it all to even make it look decent, and we're talking about the entire set made out of the dust, we don't have any of that kind of dust here on Earth.
sure we do, in the north and south poles containe rocks with very similar radiation levels. all samples of rocks and dust were first 'catologed' quarrinteiend then released by nasa...LOL.,men on the moon during 1969..GIVE ME a break.
Hey dude, the dust on the moon have a special microscopic structure in them that humans could never duplicate, if you'll excuse me for not remember the name of the structure of the top of my head. But the requirements to artifically make it are insane, it would make all the countries in the world bankrupt. Now tell me how could we fake it?
Agreed...there is simply overwhelming physical evidence. The Moon Conspiracy buffs should first ask themselves why they avoid accepting the facts. All this is unspeakably nutty.
It's very simple, really. Most of the hoax nutters I've run into have some very simple beliefs that explain much: "what I don't know isn't important." "What I don't understand isn't worth learning." "My lack of scientific training lets me 'think outside the box'" "Even though I've never been to the moon, my intuition based on a lifetime of living on the earth is infallible..."
Albert Einstein once said that among hundreds of arguments supporting a theory, all that is needed is a single contradicting one to render it refutable and valueless. In other words, there is no such a thing as partial truths in Science. A scientific truth is the one that leaves no place for doubt.
in the main i believe they did land on the moon however a few questions do need to be answered. 1)why are the crosshairs on some of the images behind the astronauts? 2)why does it appear that the same location in 2 seperate mission photos is used but claimed to be different locations by nasa?the biggest proof they landed on the moon is that they were tracked by thw georgrill bank telescope which confirmed apollo did go
Again, my question is who is running the zoom feature on the camera 1:09 to 1:15--now you're going to tell me there were THREE astronauts on the "moon" right? How can you people be so daft? Get some photos from the moon with a 10 or 12-inch newton and a video camera and make us all proud that we put men on the moon multiple times. Then all of us tha want to believe but have honest doubt will see the truth. How hard can this be?
"Starting with Apollo mission 16, the color TV camera to be used on the lunar surface is expected to be capable of being controlled remotely from the MCC. [...] The remote control functions will be "pan" (azimuth), "tilt" (elevation), "zoom" (focal length), and "iris" (lens opening). An astronaut will be able to override the ground commands and
assume full control of the televising, if desired." March 30, 1970
Here's an example of hoaxophilic thinking: 1) They used wires to dangle the astronauts. 2) They used a giant spotlight which was moved around a lot. 3) It was all done on a massive film/movie set. 4)They hid in low orbit. 5)Only a handful of NASA people knew about the hoax.
What I can't figure out is why they keep on at it. Maybe just to annoy. It only annoys me because, if I look up 'Apollo' on Google/YouTube or whatever, just about the first thing you see is the word 'Hoax'. That's a shame.
On the other hand, I've become somewhat more knowledgeable on the subject. Found out things about the Lunar Regolith, that the suits they wore could generate enough static charge to ignite flammable gas, the photo equipment used and the fantastic array of superb quality high resolution photos (shame about the majority of video clips, though, especially the Real Time stuff).
Nothing difficult to explain here, simply bad research. Initially Bart Sibrel "The rocks cry out" claimed that two different spots on the moon were identical. SVECTOR indicated that Audio/Video in BS's production doesn't match and that the location of video is identical (watch?v=eX7UKH3_xuA). Later it came out that it was footage from the film "AS16-nothing so hidden". Conclusion? BS watched this film and took everything for real, he did no research at all but claimed "fake".
The moon guys are getting old and we who witnessed the event live on tv aren't getting any younger. Don't let those hoax theorists have their way. They are the modern equivalent of the flat earth society; pity any children in their midst. The Lunar Reconnoisance project will have the resolution to show the Apollo sites but they will still cry 'fake'.
Damn, I can't see anything with this thing. I'll just have to rely on the mountains of evidence that anyone with a modicum of intelligence and no special grudge, paranoia or agenda can see is real.
Did you bother to do the arithmetic to determine if a 10" telescope has the resolution to see something as small as the lunar lander from 250,000 miles away? Or did you just throw out some big words on a topic you have no experience in?
You can see at least 2 videos with 8" telescopes posted y Gridkeeper and Jimkibou. Just do a search and you'll find them. This is really no big deal to visualize the moon with high resolution. You can buy a 12" Meade Newton for less than $4K. C'mon all you bright skeptics and bright NASA shills, set up a telescope and charge people $10 to seen the physical evidence of the Apollo moon landings.
Also check out the "longer version" posted by ZacKak right here on Youtube using a 10" telescope. With a bit larger telescope, the physical evidence should be visible.
The camera is being operated by radio from Houston. That technology was around even then and those guys were able to calculate time lags as well as put objects in orbit around celestial bodies. Some of these questions are so dumb why do I bother. Bored perhaps.
Okay, Dave. I trust you. That's what science is based upon, right? Trust...er...faith. And what about the telescope? What are you afraid of? And do you have a day job? Why don't you do something constructive to silence the hoaxers? Set up a telescope, call a news conference and put an end to the CTs once and for all.
Hi Dave: Guess what? Autofocus first appeared in about 1979. Are you telling me that a guy in Houston was radio-controlling this video with autofocus in 1969? Yeah, and the Japanese invented autofocus!
1:23 wire pull action.
NASACrooks 1 month ago
Take a hammer to the moon FFS. No proof of anything here.
royrichardsify 1 month 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 6 months ago
I saw the thumbnail of the video. I noticed you consider the hammer feather drop as evidence????? Watch from the Earth to the Moon and realize how stupid your little moon landing is...
yesiamawizardjonny 9 months ago
a true conspiracy theorist will prove impossible to argue with regardless of the facts
1982FMJ 1 year ago
Oh come, if I just think about the launch of a 110 meter, 2000 ton rocket! Do you hoaxers believe that they build and launch it just to mislead millions of people, then forget about some stupid shadows and reflections? This Moon hoax shit is just about business and making money. Project Apollo is doubtlessly the greatest adventure in human history!
VodkaFanClub 1 year ago
Every single hoax contention from Bill Kaysing forward has been throughly debunked so, why bother with one bit of newly discovered evidence when thousands have been squashed entirely already.
At what point does the conspiracy nut, who wouldnt understnd the science that describes any particulars anyway, what point is this ignorant nut satisfied and how far does science go to make them happy? It never seems to end and its a pure lack of willingness to research facts.
guitarplayer4real 1 year ago
US Govt can't cover up tons of much "smaller" conspiracies, yet they were able to cover up such huge and elaborate hoax involving hundreds of people at least, and spanning 30+ years? And NO ONE has ever sold them out, it's just the conspiracy nuts and their "proofs" in some botched photographs?
GIMME A FUCKING BREAK, idiots.
VeryVeryMeanBastard 1 year ago 2
@VeryVeryMeanBastard Simply impossible. For any of these 20 something twits buying into this mystery meat pie I would say go and hang around in a science or astronomy forum for equal amounts of time and hone your thinking skills there...
For you will be absolutely clowned with real science each time you open your mouth and you will learn a valuable lesson. Think before you talk!
guitarplayer4real 1 year ago
I have a cousin there and she never saw nobody there !!
FimDaLinha 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes but i would like to know how did that small module suceed to slow down trough moons gravitiy on landing and we know that WAST amounts of fuel is needed for rocket to escape earths gravitiy....
Useing rocket power in space where is only one molecule of matter to a 1m2 rquires even more fuel for trust trough a vacum.
REALITY = Module would be accelerated by moons gravity and crash.
munjerdo 1 year ago
The music is way too loud.
Laurelindo 1 year ago
i think this crissis the world economy is in is fake!!!!!!!!!!!!
socratesthecabdriver 1 year ago
Jack Schmitt said it best:
"If people decide they're going to deny the facts of history and the facts of science and technology, there's not much you can do with them. For most of them, I just feel sorry that we failed in their education."
Synthetrix 2 years ago
Yes I have, including the ones where the Hubble telescope takes the amazing color pictures of outer space from outer space. You do not know what I may or may not be able to do cause you don't know the first thing about me you little prick!! And I ain't talking about how hard the LLM hit the ground dumb ass, I'm talking about the fire coming out of the thrusters blasting the moon dust out of the way of where it landed!!
ironman197268 2 years ago
If the dust would continue into the ground for several meters the thrust would have surely produced a more visible crater (although the engine was switched off some meters above ground). As you can see from the photographic record, the dust is only a few centimeters thick and the surface beneath it is rather compact and dense, hence, no crater. Its always amazing how you guys stick to your initial (wrong) assumption and fail to understand what's actually going on... so funny.
amontaiyagala 2 years ago
@amontaiyagala The engine in apollo 11 were not switched off metre's above the surface. There is footage of the landing and you can clearly see the engines are still on as it's landing. But no crater, and no dust on the landing gear etc.
Spells to me it's blag as fuck.
BLAGASPANTS 1 year ago
@BLAGASPANTS If this was faked then it must've been extremely good fake, since millions of people saw the rocket in the sky and it was suddenly nowhere to be found during the moon-landing.
Also, how could they possibly even want to take such a risk?
If they wanted to fool the entire world then they would almost certainly have been spotted in the sky "as they were circling the earth" and be ashamed forever.
Laurelindo 1 year ago
@BLAGASPANTS Look closely to the LEM, you will notice some wires hanging under the landing pads. Those are sensors. When the LEM pilot said "contact light", those wires were on the surface, but the landing gear was still a good 1-2 meters above the surface, and the engine was even higher. On "contact light", the engine was turned off, thus minimizing the damage of the lunar surface
bluefury1984 1 year ago
This is Really, Really Bad...The sky would be rocking with color and stars, not those pathetic little 3 white dots. Other dummies like you say you can't see the stars cause of the sunlight, so which is it? Where is the blast crater from the lunar module landing? I don't have enough characters left to go on, this video is far from Proof!!
ironman197268 2 years ago
The evidence of a hoax is crushing. I posted a partial summary of it on a science forum. To see it, google "The Naked Scientist". In the "New Theories" section there's a thread entitled "Did we land on the moon?". The post is on page 15. It's the 7th one from the top.
Cosmored3 2 years ago
Think hard for a second, I know you might not be able to do it, but have you EVER seen stars in any video of human spaceflight, NASA or not, ANYWHERE?!
Also, if the LLM hit the surface of the moon hard enough to leave a crater...anyone inside would be killed...
crusader810 2 years ago
The sky should not be 'rocking' with stars. Because the exposure time used on the cameras was not long enough to show them.
The bright sunlit lunar surface only needs a short exposure of a small fraction of a second and a small aperture so as to not over expose it. And the stars are just too feint to show up at those settings.
watch?v=WmPFv7S7My4
That shows the difference in exposure times needed.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Bull Shit!!
ironman197268 2 years ago
No, that is reality.
Take for example that series of images in that video.
The moon only needed an exposure time of one five-thousandth of a second to expose properly, but the stars needed an exposure time of about one second before the camera is able to capture them.
The glare from the sunlit lunar surface is vastly brighter than the dim stars.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Oh whatever man, If moon landings were real there would not be all of these hoax theories going on now. How Bout nasa aim the hubble at the moon and take some really go pictures of all the moon landing evidence left on the moon from all the apollo missions? Let me guess, they can't take these photos because of some stupid lighting and film exposure reasons right!!
ironman197268 2 years ago
Really?
Have you heard the conspiracy theories about the Reptilians secretly running the world?
Do you think that is real? Yet there are so many conspiracy theories about it, and the believers take it very seriously.
As for the hubble, it is not powerful enough to resolve objects a few metres across from a quarter of a million miles away.
You would need a telescope about a hundred metres in diameter.
Unlike the LRO, which is up close and has taken some very nice images of the landers.
ytmoog 2 years ago
No I have not, and neither have you! I disagree with the hubble not being able to take a good clear picture of a man made object on the moons surface. But if that is true, why not send up a little remote control car with a camera on it like the one they supposedly sent to mars and let it drive around and take the pictures of all that stuff? The Earth is only 239,000 miles away from the moon, so the hubble is way closer than a quarter of a million miles.
ironman197268 2 years ago
Google "David Icke" some time. Its amazing the rubbish people take completely seriously.
"why not send a little car"
Or even send an orbiter to image the lunar surface in far greater detail, such as the LRO which has mapped the lunar surface in great detail and taken some nice images of the Apollo landers.
239000 is a quarter of a million, that 11000 miles makes little difference.
At that distance it has a resolution of about 60 metres per pixel. Unlike the 0.5 m resolution of the LRO.
ytmoog 2 years ago
@ironman197268
Are you fucking retarded ironman? Do you know what a quarter million means you stupid twat?
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
Oh blow me jogomomo!! I know excacly what it means, what of it?
ironman197268 1 year ago
@ironman197268
Because you said "the earth is only 239,000 miles from the moon, that is WAY LESS THAN a quarter million miles" so obviously you are retarded
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
"Oh whatever man, If moon landings were real there would not be all of these hoax theories going on now."
That's exactly what they would have.
Everything is disbelieved by some people no matter what evidence they get.
Not even the footprints on the moon can convince the sceptics, nor can all the equipment there, nor the hundreds of kilos of moon dust.
By the way, the moon dust was in large sacks - how did they get it easily into sacks with robots? Hmm... would have taken a looong time.
Laurelindo 1 year ago
Obviously theres none when Houston records their inital statement but again obviously the delay starts after their statement to the moon then theres a delay before the reply. Its a conversational thing and being recorded in Houston doesn't affect this. This is straight forward to anyone surely?
you2begin 2 years ago
It doesn't matter that it's recorded in Houston, because the delay affects the responce time to the communication. I just saw Ron Howards doco " Shadows on the Moon" and an Astronaut says if it wasn't for the Russians man wouldn't have landed on the moon for another 100 or 200 years, instead they did it before the end of the decade. Also- From the decent you see thousands of craters but from the film on the surface you don't see any, theres no picture looking into a large circular crater.
you2begin 2 years ago
Do you agree that because recordings were done in Houston one should expect 0 s delay for ground control to reply and ca. 2.6 s for astronauts reply ?
Can you indicate one single clip with shorter delays ?
In the doco "In the Shadow of the Moon" Alan Bean points out the importance of competition for the tight time schedule of Apollo - what is your interpretation ? let me guess: astronaut claims moon landing impossible for the next 1 - 200 years?
No craters ? What about AS12-46-6741?
amontaiyagala 2 years ago
Its 1.28 one way so it 2.56 both ways, I have seen vids where its shorter than this or no dealy at all but will have to look through them again. The Shadow moon thing- He implys that was the natural time scale. When theyre landing you can see craters absoulutely everywhere, there should be heaps of photos of them , aren't they of more relevance than all the photos of rocks and barren terrain. on those wide shots from the rovers you should see more of those "landing" craters
you2begin 2 years ago
How long is the delay for a comment made by ground control if recordings were done in Houston ?
amontaiyagala 2 years ago
It is sooooo lame to claim people are crazy, especially people you have never met. They supposedly went to the moon six times in three years, and then just didn't feel like going anymore, I mean why would you. You're right, technology and expertise have taken a giant leap backward since 1969, And sure they found a way to beat the speed of light in their communications, Nixon was President at the time, and he would never be involved in anything dodgy, you're so right oh great one.
you2begin 2 years ago
I never said you are "crazy". I said you are not able to back up your claims. It would be pretty worthless to discuss these claims without an example. I would say NO you would say YES... waste of time.
You claim the comm. delay is too short (but didn't realize recording were done in Houston?). I can only ask which clip you are talking about? There are hours without any comm. at all. I would be glad to discuss any specific example, but it is up to you to point out because it is your claim.
amontaiyagala 2 years ago
Jesus Christ are you retarded?, If you're going to comment or post videos on the subject of the faked moonlandings have the decency to research the fucking subject, any of the fucking Nasa clips show this lack of delay watch the fucking things. Go to Apolloarchives(.)com and look at every fucking picture you smug fuckwit. I am not your fucking substitute teacher.
you2begin 2 years ago
Hhmmm, so you are unable to back up your claim...
That's even less than I expected.
amontaiyagala 2 years ago
Communications between Houston and Apollo exceeded the speed of light. How did they manage that?There should be a 1.28 second delay in both directions, yet there is not. Whats you answer to that oh Great one of Unquestionable Knowledge.
"
you2begin 2 years ago
Funny how you came up with one question after the other but were never able to answer a single question yourself... The recording was done in Houston. That's it. It's that simple. The recording was done in Houston... Delay from Houston to Houston is... 0 s! Delay from Houston to moon is 1.3 s. Delay from Houston to the moon and for the reply back to Houston is ca. 2.6 s.
Did you even tried to think about in the first place ?
amontaiyagala 2 years ago
Yes smugo, and theres heaps of transmissions without that level in delay in them, so either the astronauts weren't on the moon or transmissions beat the speed of light, you decide. BTW they weren't edited because the conversations maintain their natural flow. Believe what you want, I can't see how anyone could watch Nasas own clips and not see problems.
you2begin 2 years ago
assholes nver ever went there. shit they brainwashed fukin fellow motherfucking americans eat shit now
10019500 2 years ago
Wow, what a well reasoned, logical and well founded analysis!
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago 2
Found some photos of visors up at apolloarchives(.) com It's supposed to be 117 degrees centigrade 242.6 farenheit during the day on the moon surely a visor protection of some kind is essential at all times. question- why does the pictures of the earth taken by the japanese sattilitte orbiting the moon differ so greatl from apollos, and yes i cam taking into account different technology.
you2begin 2 years ago
The moon doesn't get that hot until local noon. The Apollo landings were all in the early morning local solar time precisely to avoid the heat, and also to aid visibility during landing. The pressure helmets are polycarbonate (same strong stuff CDs are made from) which blocks UV without an extra visor.
SELENE data actually matches Apollo photos quite closely. Did you see their data reprojected to match surface photos? SELENE couldn't see small rocks of course but the terrain matched exactly.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
The Jomogogo is copying my comment when i told someone, possibly him, if their mother cried when the condom broke.
Sorry Jomo, I just realised your a litlle kid, you can't be more than 14, do Mum and Dad know youre so abusive on line? If they find out you might get grounded, Hows school? Those teachers can be such jerks, but one day when you grow up you show them wont you? Is "The Jomojogo" a character out of your favorite childrens book? Wait.. you might be an older retarded person...
you2begin 2 years ago
In this film an astronaut claims to have put his visor up, why then are there no photos or film of this. People defending the moonlandings have claimed they couldn't put up their visors due to uv.
Again hills and horizon very close, why not take longer shots? And by that i dont' mean 100 metres I mean 500 to 1000.
BTW Astronauts are more excited about orange sand than Neil Armstrong was about being the first on the moon, ha ha
you2begin 2 years ago
There are plenty of long range shots, you just don't look at them because it would destroy your argument. Do not tell your parents you think the Apollo landings were faked, they will be horrified at how weird and stupid you are.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
Lunar mountains are much bigger and farther away than they look in surface pictures because there are no distance cues. No atmosphere to create haze, no trees, houses, roads, etc, to create scale. Even the astronauts who were there had trouble estimating distances.
The guy who got excited by orange soil was a professional geologist. He understood its scientific significance. Do you?
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Blerp! Wrong! Atmosphere does not affect views of the horizon greatly, you can see this on your home planet earth (unless you live in a smog filled hell hole). When the astronauts move towards the "horizon" you can see that it's not far away. Armstrong commented on this in one of his many hints that the moon landings were fake. p.s one of the first rules of debating is that you can't refer to the other side as crazy, because if they are, youre crazy to debate them.
you2begin 2 years ago
Do you live on the earth, or have you spent much time on this planet? I ask because you seem to be very unfamiliar with the properties of its atmosphere.
Mountains on the earth give many visual cues of their size and distance that are completely missing on the moon. But one cue remains: they appear largely the same in pictures taken from different locations. The same photos that hoax buffs claim prove fraud actually prove they were taken on the moon.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Do you defend the Wright Brothers? No you don't . Why? because what they did was real, and can be backed up every step of the way. Apollo was B.S so you feel you have to defend it. Anyone that has studied art knows the effect of atmosphere on ones visual experience the short ditance to the horizon in the moon pictures in film can in no way be explained by lack of atmosphere. go to the Archangel4myke channel and answer or the questions raised by those clips.
you2begin 2 years ago
Nobody attacks the Wright brothers so I don't have to defend them. People like you do attack Apollo out of ignorance, misconceptions, politics or simple resentment of others' achievements, so that's why I feel compelled to rebut the bullshit.
I'm familiar with Archangel4myke. He's got some of the most hilariously ludicrous misinterpretations of Apollo material. E.g, during the A12 launch he heard "Yaw Program" as "Awe Program" and thought that was a program to fake the lightning strike!
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
You missed the point- No one attacks the Wright Brothers because everything they did is backed up by evidence , and their work was continued. Its backed up because they really did what they say they did. The reason Apollos story has so many holes in it, is because in reality they did not do what they claimed to do. If they really had done it, the next logical step would have been to build a moonbase. A4Myke has got heaps of videos and thats the bigest flaw you can mention?
you2begin 2 years ago
No, YOU missed the point. You said I didn't defend the wright brothers. I said that's because no one attacks them. People do attack Apollo, mainly because they have zero personal experience with space travel and no understanding of physics so they misapply their earth-bound intuition. Unfortunately, space travel is a lot more expensive than air travel so the public is likely to remain personally unfamiliar with space flight. But Apollo still happened. Deal with it.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
I don't have the time to waste going through every one of A4Myke's absurd misinterpretations and paranoid ravings. I happened to find his "awe program" line at random and it made me laugh out loud because I immediately knew what he had misheard.
I thought about Miss Emily Litella, Gilda Radner's character on 1970s SNL, who raved about things like "violins on TV", "the Deaf Penalty", "Presidential Erections", "Youth in Asia", "Making Puerto Rico a Steak", and so on. Gilda lives!
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
I've found it's really hard to get a gut-level appreciation for size and scale in Apollo surface pictures. My favorite Apollo landing site is probably Apollo 15, but because of the lack of size cues many of the pictures don't do justice to the place. In "Magnificent Desolation", Tom Hanks stuck the Statue of Liberty in Hadley Rille and flew the camera around, and the scale of the place finally came out.
A15 and A17 also got good views of their LMs looking back down from mountainsides.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
I can't imagine what "hints" from Armstrong you might have been talking about, because I've never heard anything that would make me doubt his veracity.
He and Aldrin did say that the horizon seemed close and attributed it to the moon's smaller size, but I think it may simply be due to the lack of distance cues. Also, Tranquility Base was a relatively flat and featureless mare. The J-mission sites with mountains were much more visually impressive.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Yes the moon is smaller but it still doesn't explain the lack of distance in horizon shots, neither does atmosphere. go to apolloarchives(.)com and look at pictures of a crappy taped together lander which is supposed to be on the moon. Look at the Apollo 11 press conference. Calculate the speed of light to the moon and see how Houstons communications go faster than that. Impossible you say?, well if they were really on the moon then the communications beat the speed of light.
you2begin 2 years ago
These are your claims, time to back them up.
Which clip lacks communication delay not explained by the recording being done in houston?
Which picture (NASA ID?) lacks distance to horizon not explained by limited depth of focus?
amontaiyagala 2 years ago
Can you please stick to one topic at a time?
I have some experience with spacecraft design and construction. Yes, thermal blankets are often taped on. Can you tell me why that shouldn't work? Your intuition says so? There's a reason engineers go to college first.
I have never seen nor heard any superliminal Apollo communications. Neither have you. I've heard *claims* of such but they're never supported by the actual recordings.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
fuck your fucking gayhouse faggot fuckin asshole music you fuckin stupid person!
fabianbjalek 2 years ago
music ruined this video
balf1111117373 2 years ago 3
I want the Hubble space telescope aimed at the landing sites on the moon.
If the Hubble can give us high def pics of deep space, it can certainly take high def pix of the lunar landing site, the flag, lunar rover, and anything that we used on the surface.
That will eliminate all argument over whether the U.S. actually landed men on the moon.
InfiniteMushroom 2 years ago
The Hubble has taken pictures of the moon but even it can't break out anything less than 300 feet wide. that's why you don't see pictures of small rocks, etc, taken from it or other telescopes. So simple.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
you forgot to put an insult in your comment , also you didn't use the word hoaxtard or moontard, just helping out , keep up the good work!
you2begin 2 years ago
That's the problem with your intuition. Your intuition says that if the Hubble can see into deep space, then it should be able to see Apollo artifacts on the moon. But your intuition is simply wrong. The artifacts are too small and too far away even for Hubble in low earth orbit.
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter IS now seeing the landing sites. And surprise, surprise, surprise, the hoaxheads are claiming its pictures are faked. No facts, NOTHING will ever change their minds.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
Nice video. And about the music: I thought I heard John Lennon somewhere... :-)
Rob260259 2 years ago
so three (3) stars in an atmosphere-free sky is good enough for you, huh?
DBRGroup 2 years ago
YES, as a scientist I wouldn't expect the astronauts to waste ANY b&w or color Hasselblad film by shooting worthless pictures of blurry stars during a mission focused on the exploration of the moon. Although there is some distortion by earth atmosphere much better results were obtained using large earth-based telescopes.
BTW, NASA used UV sensitive film during Apollo 16 to capture stars and the earth which is only possible from non-earth-based locations like the moon...
amontaiyagala 2 years ago
where can we see the photos of the stars taken by the UV camera
you2begin 2 years ago
AS16-123-19657
amontaiyagala 2 years ago
The music ruined the whole clip & made it meaningless..
Firewall2153 2 years ago
agreed
MrGibbleChip 2 years ago
yeah :/ ... the lead instrument thats making the melody pissed me off
elsepulcro 2 years ago
Ditto, Firewall.
TooSoonTooYoung 2 years ago
i just cant see y we cant just accept humans went to the moon
ridicule401 2 years ago 2
The lunar laser reflectometer allows us to confirm the lunar landings...anytime. And yet some still think a moon landing was impossible--why? Critical thinking classes should be mandatory, beginning in grade school.
ksocean 2 years ago 3
Indeed, if these footages would have been made yesterday they could have been easily faked and manipulated. But this was the end of the sixties people. The very beginning of video.
dopje31857 2 years ago
I don't know about 'easily'. Doing so convincingly would stretch the best special effects and CGI people to the limit.
Why anyone could think that special effects were that good in 1969 is just bizarre.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Boy........you are simple minded.
dopje31857 2 years ago 2
All this shit is fake you cant really trust any fims now a days they can be easly tampered with. The original film probably doesn't even exist anymore. For christ sake the Americans are still using Russian filter in space to say alive, Mostly because they don't how to make there own filter, basically what this filter is, is to convert piss/sweat back to drinking water to save money transporting water constantly to the satelite, they just simply don't know how the russians did it.
RomanS1234567 2 years ago
Well, explain us how to simulate 1/6g by attaching wires in the backpack of an astronaut but without make him walk straight as a penguin.
jcgmed 2 years ago
Still... even if you don't understand basic physics, at 0.52 on the video, when he says "significant discovery", you can see a wire holding the hammer. Yeah, you need some help to make the tricks work to impress the idiots (who then put online videos with stupid music to defend their sheeple beliefs).
TattooRouslan 2 years ago
The hammer falls in 1 sec. X=1/2gt2, here g=9.8/6 so X, the height, is supposed to be equal to 81 cm. On the moon, an object will fall from 81 cm to the ground in one second. So you have two options. Either the americans never went on moon, or their astronauts were dwarfs.
TattooRouslan 2 years ago
Your knowledge in physics is most welcome (because that's really rare among CT's). Maybe you can also point out that an object would travel 4.9 meters during 1 second free fall in earth gravity.
Using the correct fall-time of 1.3 s as seen in the video you will end up with 1.4 m for g = 1.66 m/s2 versus 8.3 m for g = 9.81 m/s2.
I would really appreciate if you could comment on the difference between 1.4 and 8.3 m...
amontaiyagala 2 years ago
The experience of the hammer and the feather is the greatest comical show ever. You can see the wires. By the way, just think about how it was filmed. The quality of images, various angles and so on... and think about how poor are the images you generaly could seen from space missions done nowadays. This was the moon. In 69. Image is perfect. Through Van Allen rings and 300000 kms of space. Today, 300 miles away, we still experience TV problems... look at the wires. It's just funny.
TattooRouslan 2 years ago
Sorry Samme79, you lost me there. Too many hoaxes I guess.....
To hoax or not to hoax?
dopje31857 2 years ago
we know that the moon landing is hoax if one hoax picture is really a hoax in that case there were some instance which was really hoax
samme79 2 years ago
Like it or not, but Americans landed on the moon in 1969. No hoax, no wires, no studios. Just science, good engineering and a lot of courage of Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin, Charles Conrad, Alan Bean, Alan Shepard, Edgar Mitchell, David Scott, James Irwin, John Young, Charles Duke, Gene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt.
.
dopje31857 2 years ago
even if NASA photographed close up images of those landing sites and moon buggies , the nutjobs would still claim their fake..So its pointless.
grumpyguts1967 2 years ago
Why do you stop short on the astronaut salute footage? Show whole clip of him turning about & dangling a couple inches above the powdered movie set, by a wire man who slightly misjudged the length of suspension for the landing of the jump. Nice try, but the cat is out of the bag, shill. Too many of us are awake now. They shoudn't have allowed us the internet to share information & show the lies.Go back to the drawing board & come up with a more realistic false flag hoax, like an Iranian/US war.
dyingtodeath 2 years ago
they already proved the half way to the moon photos that they supposedly took from the moon wrong. sorry..... type in "half way to the moon just released footage" on google. Nuff said, good day, nice music though. ( =
12GaugeLosAngeles 3 years ago
The LRO ( Lunar Recon. Orbiter ) launches in April 2009.
It has a resolution of the lunar surface of 18"...more than enough to see lots of detail at the Apollo sites.
p.s. No earth-bound telescope would be able to make them out.... even the Hubble only has a lunar resolution of 300 ft. You have to be in lunar orbit to get definative images.
You can reply back by visiting the comments page.
© 2008 YouTube, LLC
chaucer44 3 years ago
chaucer:
If you like the Hammer/feather experiment, have a look at " veryfunnyphil's YouTube video on the Apollo "hoax". It's decidedly British humor...so be patient while it's busy setting you up !
Cheers
Ravenflight104 3 years ago
the hammer/feather thing can be done in your living room without a vacuum. Try it and make sure there's no breeze.
Thanks for posting this vid! I loved the pic of the laser returns. Are we actually seeing a prolonged exposure showing the actual bounceback?
The moon landing sites aren't very clear and don't mean a thing. Later this year Nasa plans on using their newly launched satellite telescope to photograph the landng zones.
chaucer44 3 years ago
if you tried to do it with or without a breeze in your livingroom the feather would flutter to the ground. You most certainly do need a vacuum.
BipedalHumanoid 3 years ago
The landing zones are over 100 thousand Kms away. I doubt even their new scope will be able to see anything significant. They'd have to use a lunar orbiter.
BipedalHumanoid 3 years ago
That hammer and feather is funny. You can do that at the NASA training center in their training room. Does a Vacuum sound familiar to anyone. That can be man made by the way.
keslerkaiyu 3 years ago
More like, "if you are afraid of fantasy, stay at home in your bed". Reality is inconsistent regarding this video. They note the facts of all the conspiracy tales and twist it around back in their face so as to back up the truth. Humans do not evolve in space age. God never sent any organic life beyond this world. There is no record of it
amievery1 3 years ago
ah, you were JOKING. sorry dude. there are a lot of idiots around who actually believe this shit
reltonpelton 3 years ago
i was being sarcastic you witless fool.
reltonpelton 3 years ago
And consequently I must have been serious?
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
ishould call this video moon landing guesses , or claims, or fakes, or USA
billkushandfriends 3 years ago
the moon landing was fake. also, your childhood wa sfake. those people you thought were your parents,they were just actors. sorry you had to find out like this
reltonpelton 3 years ago
You should be a little bit more sensible when introducing people to your ultimate truth.
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
a Slide Show ? nope... A SIDE SHOW ! they would have had a better result if they had hired chris angel, from las vegas. oh, i forgot, mr. angel has more ethics, he will say it is a magic trick and not try to pretend it is anything more. right , chris?
firewilson81 3 years ago
Great video hopefully it will shut up the idiot moon debunker's.
reid777 3 years ago
whats with the indian music?
punji73 3 years ago
Music by Dave Pike / Volker Kriegel - Mathar - 1969.
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
A country capable of assassinating their own president is capable of any deception
ianbids 3 years ago
like 911
billkushandfriends 3 years ago
What song is that and who is it by?
ruralastronaut 3 years ago
(more info) ?
- Music by Dave Pike / Volker Kriegel - Mathar - 1969
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
Sorry for you but I'm not argentinian, I just live there, I'm french and in France, we recieve education. You have to recognize that there's a little more culture and education in Europe that in USA.
veroniquestrauss 3 years ago
Guess where are the best universities of the world...(help no. 1.: not in France)
Ozzycar80 3 years ago
ooh you're right. The best univerities are in england.
PS. I'm from Denmark
jxvwp 3 years ago
The whole thing is like religion. You believe or not ... and personally, I don't.
I don't need any proofs, my jugment tell me that was only impossible to do it. It was too perfect to be real, that's all.
veroniquestrauss 3 years ago
I see no similarity between religion and science. Religion is your personal belief and of course you are free to believe whatever you want to. But the moon landing is about science, measurements and data...
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
excuse Veronique, Amontiyagala, they don't have science or technology in Argentina, or education for that matter.
emp0rizzle 3 years ago
Science and religion is not the same.
Science is for people who can think for themselves, and are allowed to let their mind go wherever the evidence takes it. We have a greater appreciation of the wonders of the real world.
freethinkerbell 3 years ago
THANK YOU, i live in AUS and my whole class thinks the moonlanding is fake but me. Finally i hear some common sense
carlzz36 3 years ago
Thank you for keeping your common sense ...
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
oh and btw u can replicate the experiment showing Galileos's theory on earth in a vaccuum, just for your information.
Diabolous3x 3 years ago
Oh and BTW theres no vaccuum on Earth that big, just for your information.
cml950x 3 years ago
There is a video on YT which claims that the hammer and feather experiment can be replicated on earth. They try it without a vacuum and manage to, simply proving that the alleged feather is not genuine but some heavy plastic material. These guys will use every trick to convince you...
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
this video claims that "there was stars"... the astronauts claim that they didn't recall seeing any stars.... how do u account for that discrepancy? People jumped onto the bandwagon of the moon landings not happening at all, which there is evidence. Yet, its more than likely that the first moon landing was faked (and they had good reason), the ensuing moon landings probably happened. But we'll never know, its fun to see you hoots who actually give a shit duke it out on YouTube but hahaha noobs
Diabolous3x 3 years ago
the "stars" in this video are probably planets (most likley one of the gas giants), that shines so brightly that they can be seen even with a low-contrast camera...
Arachon 3 years ago
The "stars" in the video are not planets but stars (otherwise I would have called them planets...). It's a single shot taken from the CM while orbiting the moon (Maybe this solves the discrepancy pointed out by Diabolous3x). Apart from the UV photographs interest in stars was small during the Apollo mission aimed to explore the moon.
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
The astronauts saw plenty of stars during their missions -- they depended on them for navigation. They just had to use instruments to see them. They couldn't see stars in the daytime with their unaided eyes for one of the very same two reasons you and I can't see stars in the daytime: the sun and sunlit terrain are simply too bright.
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago
FINALLY, one thing that proves they were really there, Galileos theory involving a heavy weight and a light weight, I challenge ANYONE to fake this experiment on earth.
hurricanefloyd1 3 years ago
What do you mean finally theres proof? There's no credible evidence that we werent there.
cml950x 3 years ago
a) can deff spot a wire @1.48
b) still no complete hi-res pics of landing sites or pics of earth from moon vantage point.
b) laser reflectors easily dropped by UNMANNED probes.
human beings simply can not pass van allen belt. easy to mind kontrol a very select few astronaughts to go along. even easier to doctor and controll data streams and images to cent come computers during the day.
thanks....for...comming....out...LOL
23v0lv32 3 years ago
Is it a wire? Or is it the VHF antenna?
And trust me theres hi res pics you just have to look for them, and as your last bit of "proof" goes how could it be easy? I feel no need to elaborate anymore.
cml950x 3 years ago
"human beings simply can not pass van allen belt."
"Van Allen" is a big word hoax dorks hear on tv and pretend to understand. But when pressed they prove they know nothing of radiation and make idiots of themselves. Just once I'd like to meet a hoax nerd who actually bothered to ask a radiation specialist before making an idiot out of himself.
For the record, the 3 most dangerous types of radiation can be blocked with plastic.
Woo hoo.
SpeakerForBoskone 3 years ago
Whoever claims the moonlanding to be fake sure needs to take a physics class. For goodness sake in order to fake it they'd have take rocks and dust from the moon fly them here set it up in a set, pump all the air out. Then get ionize it all to even make it look decent, and we're talking about the entire set made out of the dust, we don't have any of that kind of dust here on Earth.
kokorokunsama 3 years ago
sure we do, in the north and south poles containe rocks with very similar radiation levels. all samples of rocks and dust were first 'catologed' quarrinteiend then released by nasa...LOL.,men on the moon during 1969..GIVE ME a break.
23v0lv32 3 years ago
Hey dude, the dust on the moon have a special microscopic structure in them that humans could never duplicate, if you'll excuse me for not remember the name of the structure of the top of my head. But the requirements to artifically make it are insane, it would make all the countries in the world bankrupt. Now tell me how could we fake it?
kokorokunsama 3 years ago
Agreed...there is simply overwhelming physical evidence. The Moon Conspiracy buffs should first ask themselves why they avoid accepting the facts. All this is unspeakably nutty.
ksocean 2 years ago 9
Its called Human Stupidity...
Chrisjr2007 2 years ago
It's very simple, really. Most of the hoax nutters I've run into have some very simple beliefs that explain much: "what I don't know isn't important." "What I don't understand isn't worth learning." "My lack of scientific training lets me 'think outside the box'" "Even though I've never been to the moon, my intuition based on a lifetime of living on the earth is infallible..."
ApolloWasReal 2 years ago 5
Albert Einstein once said that among hundreds of arguments supporting a theory, all that is needed is a single contradicting one to render it refutable and valueless. In other words, there is no such a thing as partial truths in Science. A scientific truth is the one that leaves no place for doubt.
WorldCitizenCV 3 years ago 2
This music is freakin good also. Does anyone know who made it?
Ozzycar80 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Take a look at the info on the right.
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
in the main i believe they did land on the moon however a few questions do need to be answered. 1)why are the crosshairs on some of the images behind the astronauts? 2)why does it appear that the same location in 2 seperate mission photos is used but claimed to be different locations by nasa?the biggest proof they landed on the moon is that they were tracked by thw georgrill bank telescope which confirmed apollo did go
clammy666 3 years ago
Go and have a look at any of the many hoax debunk clips/websites available.
davewatcher 3 years ago
Again, my question is who is running the zoom feature on the camera 1:09 to 1:15--now you're going to tell me there were THREE astronauts on the "moon" right? How can you people be so daft? Get some photos from the moon with a 10 or 12-inch newton and a video camera and make us all proud that we put men on the moon multiple times. Then all of us tha want to believe but have honest doubt will see the truth. How hard can this be?
cutler1862 3 years ago
"Starting with Apollo mission 16, the color TV camera to be used on the lunar surface is expected to be capable of being controlled remotely from the MCC. [...] The remote control functions will be "pan" (azimuth), "tilt" (elevation), "zoom" (focal length), and "iris" (lens opening). An astronaut will be able to override the ground commands and
assume full control of the televising, if desired." March 30, 1970
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
// ntrs. nasa. gov/ archive/ nasa/ casi. ntrs. nasa. gov/ 19790073183_ 1979073183. pdf
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
1)why are the crosshairs on some of the images behind the astronauts?
Hazard of developing film. A WHITE image over a black background. Try to develop film yourself and you'll see how hard it is.
But so what? Are we trying to say that NASA built little crosshairs and planted them in the background of the "set?"
WHY in the name of flying hell would they do such a thing?
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
pwnd!
Jovian84 3 years ago
Here's an example of hoaxophilic thinking: 1) They used wires to dangle the astronauts. 2) They used a giant spotlight which was moved around a lot. 3) It was all done on a massive film/movie set. 4)They hid in low orbit. 5)Only a handful of NASA people knew about the hoax.
What I can't figure out is why they keep on at it. Maybe just to annoy. It only annoys me because, if I look up 'Apollo' on Google/YouTube or whatever, just about the first thing you see is the word 'Hoax'. That's a shame.
davewatcher 3 years ago
On the other hand, I've become somewhat more knowledgeable on the subject. Found out things about the Lunar Regolith, that the suits they wore could generate enough static charge to ignite flammable gas, the photo equipment used and the fantastic array of superb quality high resolution photos (shame about the majority of video clips, though, especially the Real Time stuff).
davewatcher 3 years ago
Someone please explain this...
w w w.you tube.c o m/watch?v=nljLljAGfak
bithot2nite 3 years ago
Nothing difficult to explain here, simply bad research. Initially Bart Sibrel "The rocks cry out" claimed that two different spots on the moon were identical. SVECTOR indicated that Audio/Video in BS's production doesn't match and that the location of video is identical (watch?v=eX7UKH3_xuA). Later it came out that it was footage from the film "AS16-nothing so hidden". Conclusion? BS watched this film and took everything for real, he did no research at all but claimed "fake".
amontaiyagala 3 years ago
The moon guys are getting old and we who witnessed the event live on tv aren't getting any younger. Don't let those hoax theorists have their way. They are the modern equivalent of the flat earth society; pity any children in their midst. The Lunar Reconnoisance project will have the resolution to show the Apollo sites but they will still cry 'fake'.
watcherdave 3 years ago
watcherdave: why wait? Just get yourself about a 10" telescope and a video camera and show the world the physical evidence.
cutler1862 3 years ago
Damn, I can't see anything with this thing. I'll just have to rely on the mountains of evidence that anyone with a modicum of intelligence and no special grudge, paranoia or agenda can see is real.
davewatcher 3 years ago
Did you bother to do the arithmetic to determine if a 10" telescope has the resolution to see something as small as the lunar lander from 250,000 miles away? Or did you just throw out some big words on a topic you have no experience in?
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
You can see at least 2 videos with 8" telescopes posted y Gridkeeper and Jimkibou. Just do a search and you'll find them. This is really no big deal to visualize the moon with high resolution. You can buy a 12" Meade Newton for less than $4K. C'mon all you bright skeptics and bright NASA shills, set up a telescope and charge people $10 to seen the physical evidence of the Apollo moon landings.
cutler1862 3 years ago
Also check out the "longer version" posted by ZacKak right here on Youtube using a 10" telescope. With a bit larger telescope, the physical evidence should be visible.
cutler1862 3 years ago
'Shill' is a rather perjorative term for people who just want the truth to be known. Are you a hoax shill?
davewatcher 3 years ago
Nope, just a shill for the truth. Btw, who is running the zoom feature on the camera when the hammer and feather are dropped? Hmmmm.
cutler1862 3 years ago
The camera is being operated by radio from Houston. That technology was around even then and those guys were able to calculate time lags as well as put objects in orbit around celestial bodies. Some of these questions are so dumb why do I bother. Bored perhaps.
davewatcher 3 years ago
Okay, Dave. I trust you. That's what science is based upon, right? Trust...er...faith. And what about the telescope? What are you afraid of? And do you have a day job? Why don't you do something constructive to silence the hoaxers? Set up a telescope, call a news conference and put an end to the CTs once and for all.
cutler1862 3 years ago
If it was possible to have such a telescope, I'd have to invite all the hoaxophiles round my house to see for themselves first hand. No thanks.
davewatcher 3 years ago
Hi Dave: Guess what? Autofocus first appeared in about 1979. Are you telling me that a guy in Houston was radio-controlling this video with autofocus in 1969? Yeah, and the Japanese invented autofocus!
cutler1862 3 years ago
Was that in focus? There was a bit of zooming going on. The first demonstration of remote control by radio was in 1898 by Tessla.
davewatcher 3 years ago
news flash buddy their were people in houston working that thing
js5163 3 years ago