Of course, everyone are entitled to their own opinions, but I feel no amount of proof will every quieten conspiracy theorists. Even if you take them to the moon they'll say they were put in a simulator and wire were secretly attached to their suits etc. Even if you let them take off their helmet on the moon their last words will be "it's a vacuum chamber"!
Let's get something settled once and for all. Two seperate transmitters can uplink independently of each othet. That is why you hear overlap in certain dialogue where Houston/astros assume the other is done talking. It is also possible to respond to a question before the other party says "over". A list shows delay times corresponding to expected delay. The time for one way travel from the moon is ~1.3 seconds. That includes the 240ms needed for the satellite link from HSK to USA.
And these mystical holy grail Boniecki tapes are simply off-air recordings of the TV/Radio coverage made by the ABC on the 21st July. They are not complete and they have been edited. They are not official tapes and anyone who treats them as such is a complete idiot. And I own them, I ought to know.
And, of course, the CAPCOM in mission control can answer as soon as the transmission from the spacecraft ends. So there would be NO delay if the conversion was taped in Mission Control.
I can prove it was faked cause if they drove through the Van Halen Radiation Belt they'd of got supar powers like the Fantastic Four but none of the astronauts even got Xray vision so they didn't go. Simple logic. All my hoax friends agree. Tomorrow we're gonna build a fort.
By the way, they must have also faked all the moon rocks geologists have studied all over the world for decades. And the dust and grime that came back on all of their suits and gear and permeated the inside of the spacecraft. No analysis of this stuff has ever indicated terrestrial origin. Indeed, every analysis of rocks and dust taken from different missions shows composition different from what can be fabricated on earth just to "help' the "hoax".
As other people have also pointed out, the USSR at the time was in a desperate race of their own to prove their superiority in space technology. You can bet they monitored everything the USA did in space with their own instrumentation. The USSR would have been the very first source of exposing a hoax. They followed the telemetry all the way to the moon and back. They saw the bio-readings of astronaut heart rates, temperatures, breathing rates. The USSR never ever denied any claim from the USA!
IDIOTS!! If NASA hoaxed six moon landings they would have paid attention to every single details of physics, radio delay, no wind on the moon, blah blah...i WELL remember the delays between responses. But, in actuality the delays would usually also incorporate the electronic delays in all the amplification circuits and how a signal received in a dish in Australia, for instance, would have to go by overseas cable to get between continents. Even now satellites have their own delays--physics!
OK if you want proof positive that the moon footage was hoaxed all you have to do is listen to the unedited audio from the landings. Everytime someone says something either going to or from the moon their should be a gap of over 2 seconds before the reply. Over1 sec. to arrive+over1more to receive This is based on physics and the speed of electromagnetic waves. There usualy is not a gap this long. It only takes one example of physics being ignored to prove fakery. Laws of physics cannot change.
But laws of editing do. The original broadcasts all had the 2 1/2 second delay in transmission you are whining about, they've been edited out to save time, this has been explained , PATIENTLY, many times, but hoaxturds just don't ever get the message.
Why should I take the message because it is from you........can you back up your claims....with a original recording......or is your edited tapes just hype,. Those Boniecki tapes - Apollo Archive tapes - and tapes on NASA website are all the same, the delay is too short.
Apparently you did not read my post here is a qoute "all you have to do is listen to the UNEDITED audio from the landings." Dont repeat what others have said...you can say something is true without looking into it yourself easily all it takes is blind faith. Find unedited footage. Watch it for yourself. Then be shocked. It is that simple. Plenty of unedited footage exists. Anyone who does this simple, simple test will see what I am saying is 100% true.
Idiots think 6 Apollo landings were faked even though you can see the actual modules today have real hardware. I was at Cape Kennedy in the press stands when the first Saturn rocket sent the first men around the moon. The Saturn was huge, made the ground shake like an earthquake more than a mile away, the shock wave knocked down a speaker on a metal bracket over my head. NASA did not work hundreds of thousands of technicians for years to fake this in a studio. And SIX times?
The command service module would be easily visible from the ground to any amateur satellite watcher.And a craft in low earth orbit would move across the sky much faster then one on an escape trajectory. In fact, the Apollo spacecraft going into trans-lunar injection was spotted as well as various emissions from the CSM, like urine dumps and the oxygen clouds of Apollo 13. Do you have any evidence it remained in orbit?
the TRUTH behind all moon conspiracies finally have been explained. Watch the trailer for the documentary 'LUNOPOLIS' on YouTube... Every UFO, paranormal event and conspiracy... explained.
HAHA Landing on the MOON! Yeah right ~ Michael Jackson even managed to get much closer than any of those fraudsters with his brilliant moon walk!
Let's just pray that their 9/11 $cam is exposed much sooner than it's taken folks to realize their moon landing $cam & JFK's INSIDE assassination as well.
xango247: Are you capable of having an interesting, itellectual debate without resorting to insults and bad language? I hardly think it lends much credence to any arguments you may put forward when you state in such a derogatory fashion. Moreover, calling people a "dumbass" isn't really compelling evidence to substantiate your claims. I'm afraid you may have to do better than that!
Well the reason you can tell is there are no stars in the background also the way there are shadows of the ground but not on the astronauts, also the reason we faked it is because of the cold war when russia sent sputnick up and we needed to show them we were more advanced in the war... that is everything you need...
The stars in the background is pretty simple. Glare from the moon's surface would require a camera's lens to close up, obscuring the stars. If you look at the sky at night in a city, you'll not see many stars, but move to a place which does not have light polution and you'll see thousands. Keep in mind that our night time should not be confused with bright daylight on the moon.
People who ask questions are not retards. There were serious questions to be asked about the apollo missions and to my mind they have been sort of answered satisfactorily. However the real retards are the sheeple who swallow anything they are told. Whilst people ask questions the Bourgeoisie don't get it all their own way. There are major conspiracies in this world. Without questions, the sheeple will just carry on believing the rubbish they're told
Yea I'd just ignore the conspiracy theorists, they are so unbelievably retarded I actually feel sorry for them, they are just completely stupid and pathetic.
Those who ignore are «ignorants» and the retarded are all those who believe in something that never took place, just because they are too lazy to think a little bit.
Assuming it was all faked, imagine the cost of setting it up, then ask why build a model of cardboard and tape? All the strength and rigidity we need on earth just is not necessary on the moon. It would certainly be cheaper to fly to the moon than fake it and pay off so many people.
You cannot actually believe that flying to the moon is cheaper than faking the mission on earth. Space travel is expensive. I am not saying the landing was fake but the budget was huge.
It doesn't matter how much the hoax theories are debunked, you can never stop them. Even if you put these theorists in a rocket and blast them to the moon, they'll say they were put in a simulator!!
A more logical person would ask why NASA would release photos of a lander with tape on it, if it was damning evidence of fakery, but it seems many people who comment here lack that fundamental capacity. They also do not understand the difference b/w atmosphere and no atmosphere... and a slew of other basics.
the media has done a good job on you , just suck in everything the media says and believe it , if it is on the news it must be true , you fucking idiot !
If you applied the same cynical skepticism to the logistics of a hoax that you did to the idea it was real, you might see that many technical aspects of a hoax are completely friggin ridiculous. We have footage of astronauts bouncing around on the moons surface 150m away from the camera. We have signals received from the moon while the US is on the opposite side of the planet. Why don't you look up a few movies that have moon scenes on them - they look poor compared to the real thing.
150m = 470 feet away, so that's a pretty good camera & who was controling the camera, mission control or someone on the remote switch re: turning left right etc, I have 1 question? the muthbuster's had the chance to prove re: gravity & have a look at the footage almost everything is floating around, yet look at the item that is on left bottom of the footage you can see that a item is just sitting on th floor of the aircraft, there's proof that gravity on the moon prove's a lot at all the footage
i was ACTUALLY setting the 150 meters thing up for a punchline, but thanks for filling me in. i have seen multiple missions at different sites over the course of a few days at the time. i have also seen the overlays fromm the different missions. why do the "seperate" sites, hundreds of miles away from the day before, overlap PERFECTLY with the 1st location?! what about the 400+ degree temp. shift from light to dark side of the moon? suit pressure, VA Belts, radiation, BASIC MATH even??!
go to Apollo JPL and get an original high rez photo of the LEM on the moon photo number:
AS1140 5922hr this is one of many oficial photos that is damning from Apollo 11 landing it shows the Lem is a prop made of Scotch tape cardboard etc or another photo to look up directly from NASA IS: Apollo mission Photo : AS1713420469HR
i suppose it wasnt to be viewed so close up as to see the messy stoct tape and paper LOL
This craft was never meant to fly in air. It was in fact Mans first pure space craft. Using tape is actually a good thing for thermal control as your contacting as little of the inner layers with the outer layers as possible, so little of what heat transfers radiatively from the sun conducts into the inner layers. Structural strength isn't important as these aren't structural parts.
go look up those offical photos then you will see what im talking about im not talking about thermal control or anything tm talking about a crappy movie prop proof get them from JPL or directly online from Project Apollo online ! AS1140 5922HR and AS1713420469HR
I looked the photos up. My reply was based on them.
Do some looking of your own.
apolloarchive [.] com/apollo_gallery [.] html Click 'Early Apollo', then scroll down to 'Lunar Module Construction'
The outer panels aren't even part of the pressurized cabin. Also, while it is looks, it IS, too flimsy so operate on Earth, it wasn't designed to. It was designed only for the vacuum, low gravity environment of the moon. So you don't need the same structural strength you would need on Earth.
I have never understood that...they say "less than 30 sec. of fuel" and than??? How do you find the POWER to leave the moon?!? Who filmed the LM taking off from the moon?
And then. . .you take off in the ASCENT stage of the lunar module, which had a completely separate fuel tanks, rocket engine and batteries then the DECENT stage. The 30 seconds of fuel left refer to the DECENT stage. Oh, and the ascent was filmed two ways. One,. there was a 16mm film camera inside the lunar module.
Two, for APollo, 15, 16 and 17, there was a video camera on the lunar rover, that could be panned, tilted and zoomed from Mission Control by one Ed Fendell.
funny comments on here like the ones saying conspiracy theorists are just idiots ..ok some are but also open your mind ..this is why youll always be the cattle .....question who published the pictures of the moon you idiots ..it would be quite easy to fake pictures and video ever watched a big budget sci fi movie? ..airbrushed pictures ...they did not go FACT...why havent they been back recently ? surely with the advances in technology it would be a peace of piss wouldnt it?
I'm sorry but if you don't believe that the countless amounts of video and imagery taken of the moon's surface, including later-date satellite pictures taken of the landing sites, is enough to warrant the proof of the moon landings then you are simply stupid. Conspiracy theorists are generally just idiots; their backwards way of thinking is retarded and they are the bane of society. Please go and die.
Why don't you hoax supporters stop nitpicking on the vague and sketchy detals that you keep grabbing onto like your life depends on it, and explain how some of the more obvious evidence that they were on the moon was faked?
Maybe. Apollo however, would require pro rata the amount of fuel , the third tank used to break free from Earth`s gravity , to enable it to break free from the moon`s one sixth gravity.
Apollo capsule was already in orbit, the increase in speed to escape velocity of the moon is very small. All this has been gone over countless times, you're not going to come up with anything earth shaking. Hoaxtards just look foolish.
Here is what it says: "It takes around 2.5 seconds for a radio signal to reach the Moon and bounce back to another part of the Earth". It most definitely doesn't say it takes 2.5 to get there and 2.5 to come back. I guess "us believers" aren't in as much trouble as you thought, after all as you say "those people here should know they are playing with it."
And before you mention the 5 seconds they mention in the article, you might want to remember that these ham operators are talking from the earth-to the earth via this method doubling the distances used on apollo.
The 2.5 second event on the Boniecki tape which you seem to have a problem with has the delay time expected, as the article you forwarded me to confirms. By the way, may I ask why you give so much importance to the Boniecki tapes?
The tape....very close to 2 seconds, delay time expected, you believers are clever arguers. You don't mind to lie - cheat - play dumb, what ever it takes.
It is you there claiming those here on youtube are edited.....so therefore Boniechi tapes are not, are they.
Well I'm glad you can see beyond the usual Youtube goings on and not need to resort to calling me a liar, or dumb, or a cheater. That is certainly a refreshing change and I am glad someone like you takes the lead and decides to debate rather than call the opponent names. Did you record the Boniecki tapes, you seem to know alot about them?
Now you are as I say playing (playing ) dumb. This 2,51 is the absolutely lowest it can get, plus responds time. 2 seconds is halve a second lower included responds time, so what does it tell one there are free to wonder.
OK. Which comment exactly is the one bugging you? Can you quote what is said? What is the repsonse from the moon. Is it highly articulate or a "yes" "no" or "OK" reposnse? you have to agree that being precise is important here, right?
Actually, there is no set in stone reason why the delay has to be 2,51 seconds, or ~1,3 when discussing the response from the astronauts. It is possible to respond to a sentence before Houston has finished which is why we hear overlap of both parties talking at the same time. As I stated from the beginning.
Now here is something for the believers, it's says a radio signal takes 2,5 second to get to the Moon, and 2,5 second to bounce back....that might be so in practical life. And those people here should know they are playing with it.
If that is so.....I don't know, but if so....you believers are in deep trouble.
The Mars Rover was a robot.....? there is not much development in going to Mars, what I have read NASA clearly says, they have a problem they can not solve yet....the radiation.
Comparing the radiation dose of a possibly 2 year Mars mission and a 2 week Apollo mission is absurd. For one thing, simple multiplication will tell you the total amount of possible exposure will be far greater.
And a mission to Mars will be guaranteed to encounter dangers Apollo didn't due to its short duration, like dangerous level solar storms.
What next, equate John Mauldins 6 feet of lead for an interstellar generation ship to an Apollo mission?
If you miss the dangerous level solar storm, then their is a big difference. It's all about playing the odds. Powerful enough solar events to be dangerous are rare, just like Earthquakes happen every day, yet almost all can only be detected by instruments, let alone felt, and least of all causing any damage. A 2 year mission to Mars is playing the game 52 times longer, and the House always wins. So it needs far more protection, and not just for long term exposure.
That footage, or the original footage where Kissinger and Rumsfeld 'admit it' is from a French mockumentary where the words of those men are manipulated in order to demonstrate spin. I doubt you'll see either of those chaps, who are still alive, admitting anything of the kind.
You do know the producers of the show openly admit they edited the program to have Kissinger and Rumsfeld imply that, dont you? That's why they refer to their video project as a "MOCKUMENTARY".
I have heard it, and I found it suspicious the way it is edited....the shooting of this guy on the Island....ha...ha...but I don't understand why those big shots are going along with it.
Yeah kill it guys - unless you can find creditable backups apart from that footage - you know, CNN or Reuters, wikipedia or the like then it's bad-ass spin and not fact. What we have here is French doco stating they've spun those words to look like the two of them admit fakery - and nothing else to back it up. No insults to you gentlemen, but that's the way it is so far.
And those big shots participated......could be. I have never heard it in the news, word or written. And that's make me wonder, but anyway it is clever made.
The evidence that they didn`'t go to the moon is crushing. Once people have seen it, there's nothing anyone can do to make them think they really went.
So let me get this right. You have no qualms calling every dumbasses, yet the second someone owns you good and proper you pike out and think its a good idea to end the topic? Its hardly my fault if you didnt understand (by your own admission no less) that you decided to debate with someone who knows what their talking about. BTW the Boniecki tapes are mine, kinda makes sense I'd known whats on them.
Who started calling dumbasses, this contacttommy hardly know other words. I don't understand the.... what you call propogation ? so what is the rigt time propogation to the moon. Do you claim the right propogation is 1,3 seconds, and claim you are a wise guy with a great understanding, and I am a dumass because I don't get it....1,3 seconds kiss my.....
Look up the speed of light. Figure out how long it takes light to travel from the moon to the earth. Radio waves travel at the speed of light. There's your delay, which matches the repsonse delay times of the communications. Look up "moon" on wiki and you'll see it all explained with an animation as well to help understand the delay.
Do you say that the delay - silence between Houston and Moons responds is the time it takes for the signal to travel from the Moon.....? that is what I want to know, not all that rubbish...speed of light 300,000 k i have looked that up long ago, Is that yours...what you call propogation that I don't understand, but you do. So the delay you say is the time it takes to travel FROM the Moon, that is the correct propogation you say.........?
I say a signal takes ~1,3 seconds to travel from the moon. It is also possible for the moonwalkers to repsond before Houston finishes talking and you also hear overlap on the tapes. I say the signal from the moon takes ~1.3 seconds to get here. echo on fedback audio will be ~1.3x2 seconds. I hear that on McCandless' voice at certain points.
Ahaa, so it cannot be less than 1,3 x 2 unless it is overlapping......so when there is less than 1,3 x 2 seconds ( no overlapping ) something are wrong right.....so what is the propogation that I don't understand.
No. The delay is ~1.3 seconds. As it is a two-way open circuit reponses can be less than 1.3 seconds - there is nothing stopping either party from starting to talk before the other has finished inckluding the delay factor. Which is what I have said from the beginning. Let's just call delay, delay for now. Propagation is satellite TX terminology used when referencing delay.
If the audio circuit was a single carrier where only one signal could occur at one time, in either direction only then could you claim a delay less than ~1.3 seconds is impossible. The Apollo S-band was not like that. Houston and the moon could transmit indepedently from each other. That is why you get delays less than ~1,3 sec and why overlapping happens.
Aha...propagation......wheather they have one or two channel we can only hear one at the time. When Houston have done their talk, and the "Moon" answer Houstons talk, the Moon have to wait to hear Houston finish before the "Moon" can answer, so the pause got to be no less than 2,6 second...2,6 second in theories.
If not...you're a dumbass. You very rarely see any stars on any pics or video from orbit. It's an optics thing...something you're too stupid to reseach.
If you did see stars on Apollo pictures, that would be an indication of fake.
I have a degree. I've seen enough pictures of space to know that the stars are usually visable. Not sure what is with the hostility. Mabey an educated response would have been more productive.
Anyways How is it to work at taco bell? I'm a professional, so folding tacos must be outside of my scope of practice compared to your grand knowledge, intellegence, and omniscent genius
You've seen enough pics? That proves you're a dumbass. Show me one from a Soyuz mission.
I watch the Nasa channel all the time and there are hardly ever any stars visible even when the ISS or shuttle or Soyuz is on the dark side of the planet.
Nice try, but your bluff is called and you are left looking like the dumbass that all hoaxers are.
BTW...Battlestar Galactica episodes do not count. HAAAAAA
You believing everything government telling you dumbasses should start to think, but you do not have the guts to do so. It would mean that you would have to cut the hand off your babysitter government.
BTW I am talking about the Boniecki tapes, which is what you referred to. 'I even gave the file name in the time check. I did not use this YT video as it isn't a raw feed transmission - its a highlighted tv show segment.
Listen to the video, the reply from the "moon" is immediate......so this moon story is rubbish....it is a hoax....what else is the explanation, what is yours....ha....ha....
All public images (photographs) of the Earth's moon are taken tens, hundreds, and thousands of miles from it's surface. Even still, if there exists telescopes (satellites) that can photograph a cup on one's picnic table from space, why are there NO such close-up public photographs of the Earth's moon. I ask you, my fellow Americans, "Why is this"? Where are the detailed images of our nearest natural satellite? NASA is not to be trusted or taken seriously! I cannot stress this enough.
Which satellite can image a teacup on your table from outer space? Do you have a name or spec number? Or is it possible that no such satellite exists? Google earth BTW is made by aircraft photography.
I once sew on TV something about what a satellite could do, and that was incredible, don't remember now, but have read that it can read the number plates.
please dont let your lack of proof or ability to intelligently defend your point cause you to degenerate to insults and petty comments. Please have substance.
If they did land on the moon with 1969 technology - wow , it would be so easy now. Use the same 1969 equipment , as it works well, or use the better stuff of today.
Going to the moon now, will be a walk in the park...............unless they were and are telling porkies...........................
I agree, the news release stated they were going to look for possible"future landing sites" and for water and test tempertures ect , ahhhh hast this supposedly already been done?? They are acting like its the first time to the moon.....shut my mouth....
Apollo landing sites were basically centred around the lunar equator. A quick look at Google Moon shows this. Let's say you were some hypothetical alien who had landed on Earth on the tropics, and were later planning to go to the Temperate and even Arctic latitudes. You would certainly want to do some surveying of this area first before you actually went to the expense of landing. it is the first time, for this new area. The moon may be much smaller then Earth, but it's still a big place.
They went across the Atlantic in a dirigible in the 30's. Should be so simple now, right? Wrong. For one thing, in the intervening years much practical experience has been lost as engineers have died. As well, we would want to do more then replicate Hindenburg, we would want to do better, safer for one thing. Same with Constellation. Apollo stayed a maximum of 3 days on the moon. Constellation shortest planned mission is twice that long. Longer term solutions will be needed. It's not the same.
And this fabulous course of event DID NOT happend at all, according to Chanal 4 UK, and some other nut cases that hates America and everything that comes form America.
The screwed up psychologist in Norway Berit Aas officially claimed the same thing!!!
Any one there questioning what they been told by the state....hates America. That is rubbish, that is your way of putting pressure on people, not to open their mouth. It is a dishonest way of arguing.
I don't know if they went there, but neither does the flag huggers. I just point at the thing there does not sound right. Like the delay in comunication......radiation......and a lot more.
The dangers of radiation depend on dose, and type as well. Alpha particles, also known as helium nuclei, can be stopped by human skin. The Van Allen belts are mainly fairly high energy electrons and protons. I haven't been able find much on the penetration of protons, but electrons can be stopped by the walls of the CM, at least adequately for the few hours that Apollo spent going through them. Cosmos 110 sent 2 dogs in and out of the inner belts for 22 days, the total dosage was 12 rads.
I hope that after the mission is over and no photo of any Eagle landing area or equip is shown for whatever reason it well make the landing "believers" start thinkin. This is perfect time for Nasa to come clean, we shall see, i say dont hold your breath.
That is going to be interesting to see, but it is easy to fake.
Obama.....right from what I can see those US elections are faked, I saw on the net that people in some towns had voted for Ron Paul, but there were no votes officially. And all those money there were put behind him by the elitist should make you think.
Nasa will find an excuse to avoid the "landing site" you watch, literally.
Garcia0384, my friend regardless of what Nasa shows you will still believe one of the greatest hoaxes of all time, but lets wait for July to run its course.
as of today 2 Lunar probes have just made the moons orbit and interestingly enough in the news release NOT one refrence of Apollo landings. I m curious to see how during this mission they are going to explain the lack of Apollo equp. or debris
Of course, everyone are entitled to their own opinions, but I feel no amount of proof will every quieten conspiracy theorists. Even if you take them to the moon they'll say they were put in a simulator and wire were secretly attached to their suits etc. Even if you let them take off their helmet on the moon their last words will be "it's a vacuum chamber"!
collyshaz 2 years ago
The only person that has done any "moonwalking" in the last 50 years was Michael Jackson!
Peace Michael.
scorp8pus 2 years ago
scorp6pus: I LOVE your comment! SO, SO TRUE! :)
Michael must be laughing his head off in typical THRILLER style!
~@~ South Africa
PS: However, 'their' interest in landing on Mars, is to infiltrate or destroy or whatever the ET's Space Stations 'they' know are there!
These are the ET's communal / centralized WORK stations / repair centres to tend to their craft whilst assisting Earth. :)
Sounds absurd I know ~ but the truth will surface 1 of the days, so until then, why argue? :)
annie46664 2 years ago
Let's get something settled once and for all. Two seperate transmitters can uplink independently of each othet. That is why you hear overlap in certain dialogue where Houston/astros assume the other is done talking. It is also possible to respond to a question before the other party says "over". A list shows delay times corresponding to expected delay. The time for one way travel from the moon is ~1.3 seconds. That includes the 240ms needed for the satellite link from HSK to USA.
Dstevenb 2 years ago
And these mystical holy grail Boniecki tapes are simply off-air recordings of the TV/Radio coverage made by the ABC on the 21st July. They are not complete and they have been edited. They are not official tapes and anyone who treats them as such is a complete idiot. And I own them, I ought to know.
Dstevenb 2 years ago
And, of course, the CAPCOM in mission control can answer as soon as the transmission from the spacecraft ends. So there would be NO delay if the conversion was taped in Mission Control.
blablubb12345 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I can prove it was faked cause if they drove through the Van Halen Radiation Belt they'd of got supar powers like the Fantastic Four but none of the astronauts even got Xray vision so they didn't go. Simple logic. All my hoax friends agree. Tomorrow we're gonna build a fort.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
JOMO...LOLOL!
I'm going to borrow this one...OK?
LindaStevensBZ 2 years ago
Yes, use it all you want.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
By the way, they must have also faked all the moon rocks geologists have studied all over the world for decades. And the dust and grime that came back on all of their suits and gear and permeated the inside of the spacecraft. No analysis of this stuff has ever indicated terrestrial origin. Indeed, every analysis of rocks and dust taken from different missions shows composition different from what can be fabricated on earth just to "help' the "hoax".
ViennaForever 2 years ago
As other people have also pointed out, the USSR at the time was in a desperate race of their own to prove their superiority in space technology. You can bet they monitored everything the USA did in space with their own instrumentation. The USSR would have been the very first source of exposing a hoax. They followed the telemetry all the way to the moon and back. They saw the bio-readings of astronaut heart rates, temperatures, breathing rates. The USSR never ever denied any claim from the USA!
ViennaForever 2 years ago
IDIOTS!! If NASA hoaxed six moon landings they would have paid attention to every single details of physics, radio delay, no wind on the moon, blah blah...i WELL remember the delays between responses. But, in actuality the delays would usually also incorporate the electronic delays in all the amplification circuits and how a signal received in a dish in Australia, for instance, would have to go by overseas cable to get between continents. Even now satellites have their own delays--physics!
ViennaForever 2 years ago
Frank...you should probably stick to folding burritos.
FYI...many clips had the audio delay edited out. DUH!
Do you really think you're the first person to think of this Hoax crap.
Been debunked by SCIENTISTS for many years.
Only Retards believe the Moon Hoax. FACT!
LindaStevensBZ 2 years ago
OK if you want proof positive that the moon footage was hoaxed all you have to do is listen to the unedited audio from the landings. Everytime someone says something either going to or from the moon their should be a gap of over 2 seconds before the reply. Over1 sec. to arrive+over1more to receive This is based on physics and the speed of electromagnetic waves. There usualy is not a gap this long. It only takes one example of physics being ignored to prove fakery. Laws of physics cannot change.
frankensteinmoneymac 2 years ago
But laws of editing do. The original broadcasts all had the 2 1/2 second delay in transmission you are whining about, they've been edited out to save time, this has been explained , PATIENTLY, many times, but hoaxturds just don't ever get the message.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
TheJomogogo.
Why should I take the message because it is from you........can you back up your claims....with a original recording......or is your edited tapes just hype,. Those Boniecki tapes - Apollo Archive tapes - and tapes on NASA website are all the same, the delay is too short.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Apparently you did not read my post here is a qoute "all you have to do is listen to the UNEDITED audio from the landings." Dont repeat what others have said...you can say something is true without looking into it yourself easily all it takes is blind faith. Find unedited footage. Watch it for yourself. Then be shocked. It is that simple. Plenty of unedited footage exists. Anyone who does this simple, simple test will see what I am saying is 100% true.
frankensteinmoneymac 2 years ago
ViennaForever can you please stop posting sense. The conspiracy theorists can't handle posts like that.
KniFenForK 2 years ago
Idiots think 6 Apollo landings were faked even though you can see the actual modules today have real hardware. I was at Cape Kennedy in the press stands when the first Saturn rocket sent the first men around the moon. The Saturn was huge, made the ground shake like an earthquake more than a mile away, the shock wave knocked down a speaker on a metal bracket over my head. NASA did not work hundreds of thousands of technicians for years to fake this in a studio. And SIX times?
ViennaForever 2 years ago
No one suggests they never went into orbit!!! the idea is that they went into orbit and stayed there....Only the actual landing was faked.
frankensteinmoneymac 2 years ago
The command service module would be easily visible from the ground to any amateur satellite watcher.And a craft in low earth orbit would move across the sky much faster then one on an escape trajectory. In fact, the Apollo spacecraft going into trans-lunar injection was spotted as well as various emissions from the CSM, like urine dumps and the oxygen clouds of Apollo 13. Do you have any evidence it remained in orbit?
astr [.] ua [.] edu/keel/space/apollo [.] html
loperspest 2 years ago
the TRUTH behind all moon conspiracies finally have been explained. Watch the trailer for the documentary 'LUNOPOLIS' on YouTube... Every UFO, paranormal event and conspiracy... explained.
moonescapee 2 years ago
bullshit
Pasha3d 2 years ago
HAHA Landing on the MOON! Yeah right ~ Michael Jackson even managed to get much closer than any of those fraudsters with his brilliant moon walk!
Let's just pray that their 9/11 $cam is exposed much sooner than it's taken folks to realize their moon landing $cam & JFK's INSIDE assassination as well.
South Africa
annie46664 2 years ago
Please enlighten us with some evidence.
collyshaz 2 years ago
Typical nigthink.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
and also pearl harbour!
MinefielDuk 2 years ago
xango247: Are you capable of having an interesting, itellectual debate without resorting to insults and bad language? I hardly think it lends much credence to any arguments you may put forward when you state in such a derogatory fashion. Moreover, calling people a "dumbass" isn't really compelling evidence to substantiate your claims. I'm afraid you may have to do better than that!
collyshaz 2 years ago
Well the reason you can tell is there are no stars in the background also the way there are shadows of the ground but not on the astronauts, also the reason we faked it is because of the cold war when russia sent sputnick up and we needed to show them we were more advanced in the war... that is everything you need...
lilbobby100 2 years ago
The stars in the background is pretty simple. Glare from the moon's surface would require a camera's lens to close up, obscuring the stars. If you look at the sky at night in a city, you'll not see many stars, but move to a place which does not have light polution and you'll see thousands. Keep in mind that our night time should not be confused with bright daylight on the moon.
collyshaz 2 years ago
People who ask questions are not retards. There were serious questions to be asked about the apollo missions and to my mind they have been sort of answered satisfactorily. However the real retards are the sheeple who swallow anything they are told. Whilst people ask questions the Bourgeoisie don't get it all their own way. There are major conspiracies in this world. Without questions, the sheeple will just carry on believing the rubbish they're told
jamiejoh04 2 years ago
Yea I'd just ignore the conspiracy theorists, they are so unbelievably retarded I actually feel sorry for them, they are just completely stupid and pathetic.
KniFenForK 2 years ago
Those who ignore are «ignorants» and the retarded are all those who believe in something that never took place, just because they are too lazy to think a little bit.
xzktplm 2 years ago
What would the point of faking and lying to the world be?
I think it was true.
WinstonKing 2 years ago
Assuming it was all faked, imagine the cost of setting it up, then ask why build a model of cardboard and tape? All the strength and rigidity we need on earth just is not necessary on the moon. It would certainly be cheaper to fly to the moon than fake it and pay off so many people.
collyshaz 2 years ago
You cannot actually believe that flying to the moon is cheaper than faking the mission on earth. Space travel is expensive. I am not saying the landing was fake but the budget was huge.
Baalur 2 years ago
It doesn't matter how much the hoax theories are debunked, you can never stop them. Even if you put these theorists in a rocket and blast them to the moon, they'll say they were put in a simulator!!
They don't believe it because they don't want to.
collyshaz 2 years ago 4
A more logical person would ask why NASA would release photos of a lander with tape on it, if it was damning evidence of fakery, but it seems many people who comment here lack that fundamental capacity. They also do not understand the difference b/w atmosphere and no atmosphere... and a slew of other basics.
krisdevalle 2 years ago
not true. I wish I could believe in it
shanehoustein 2 years ago
you believe we went to the moon just like you believe that and airplane brought down the world trade center LOL dumb ass
xango247 2 years ago
Yeah those films of the airplanes smacking into the WTC and the thousands of witnesses are all government plants LOL you're fuckass stupid
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
the media has done a good job on you , just suck in everything the media says and believe it , if it is on the news it must be true , you fucking idiot !
xango247 2 years ago
If you applied the same cynical skepticism to the logistics of a hoax that you did to the idea it was real, you might see that many technical aspects of a hoax are completely friggin ridiculous. We have footage of astronauts bouncing around on the moons surface 150m away from the camera. We have signals received from the moon while the US is on the opposite side of the planet. Why don't you look up a few movies that have moon scenes on them - they look poor compared to the real thing.
krisdevalle 2 years ago
what's "150m" mean?
docdrew87 2 years ago
150m = 470 feet away, so that's a pretty good camera & who was controling the camera, mission control or someone on the remote switch re: turning left right etc, I have 1 question? the muthbuster's had the chance to prove re: gravity & have a look at the footage almost everything is floating around, yet look at the item that is on left bottom of the footage you can see that a item is just sitting on th floor of the aircraft, there's proof that gravity on the moon prove's a lot at all the footage
7071t6 2 years ago
i was ACTUALLY setting the 150 meters thing up for a punchline, but thanks for filling me in. i have seen multiple missions at different sites over the course of a few days at the time. i have also seen the overlays fromm the different missions. why do the "seperate" sites, hundreds of miles away from the day before, overlap PERFECTLY with the 1st location?! what about the 400+ degree temp. shift from light to dark side of the moon? suit pressure, VA Belts, radiation, BASIC MATH even??!
docdrew87 2 years ago
go to Apollo JPL and get an original high rez photo of the LEM on the moon photo number:
AS1140 5922hr this is one of many oficial photos that is damning from Apollo 11 landing it shows the Lem is a prop made of Scotch tape cardboard etc or another photo to look up directly from NASA IS: Apollo mission Photo : AS1713420469HR
i suppose it wasnt to be viewed so close up as to see the messy stoct tape and paper LOL
Go look at it for yourself!!
virgogreg 2 years ago
This craft was never meant to fly in air. It was in fact Mans first pure space craft. Using tape is actually a good thing for thermal control as your contacting as little of the inner layers with the outer layers as possible, so little of what heat transfers radiatively from the sun conducts into the inner layers. Structural strength isn't important as these aren't structural parts.
loperspest 2 years ago
go look up those offical photos then you will see what im talking about im not talking about thermal control or anything tm talking about a crappy movie prop proof get them from JPL or directly online from Project Apollo online ! AS1140 5922HR and AS1713420469HR
virgogreg 2 years ago
I looked the photos up. My reply was based on them.
Do some looking of your own.
apolloarchive [.] com/apollo_gallery [.] html Click 'Early Apollo', then scroll down to 'Lunar Module Construction'
The outer panels aren't even part of the pressurized cabin. Also, while it is looks, it IS, too flimsy so operate on Earth, it wasn't designed to. It was designed only for the vacuum, low gravity environment of the moon. So you don't need the same structural strength you would need on Earth.
loperspest 2 years ago
It was the greatest science fiction movie EVER !! pitty we didnt really land on the moon
virgogreg 2 years ago
Your proof of that statement?
loperspest 2 years ago
Comment removed
plugo1 2 years ago
WE nEVER GOT THERE GET OVER IT
xxXTRWLxxX 2 years ago
There's no solid proof that we didn't. There's plenty of proof that we did. The claims for fakery are insubstantial, and have no real backup.
krisdevalle 2 years ago
I don't care if we landed on the moon or not, space is still amazing. :3
kutagari 2 years ago
but what about the gas to get back?
sheeshye 2 years ago
Lander was 2 stage, 1st stage for landing and 2nd for getting back off.
Duncanvillan 2 years ago
I have never understood that...they say "less than 30 sec. of fuel" and than??? How do you find the POWER to leave the moon?!? Who filmed the LM taking off from the moon?
lucatn 2 years ago
And then. . .you take off in the ASCENT stage of the lunar module, which had a completely separate fuel tanks, rocket engine and batteries then the DECENT stage. The 30 seconds of fuel left refer to the DECENT stage. Oh, and the ascent was filmed two ways. One,. there was a 16mm film camera inside the lunar module.
Two, for APollo, 15, 16 and 17, there was a video camera on the lunar rover, that could be panned, tilted and zoomed from Mission Control by one Ed Fendell.
loperspest 2 years ago
funny comments on here like the ones saying conspiracy theorists are just idiots ..ok some are but also open your mind ..this is why youll always be the cattle .....question who published the pictures of the moon you idiots ..it would be quite easy to fake pictures and video ever watched a big budget sci fi movie? ..airbrushed pictures ...they did not go FACT...why havent they been back recently ? surely with the advances in technology it would be a peace of piss wouldnt it?
tropicalfrogstheband 2 years ago
Yes it would....They don't go back because they should admint to the world that it's not possible for man to land on the moon, that's it!!!!
lucatn 2 years ago
Yorue an idoit. hwo teh fukc cna yuo sya stpudi siht leki tihs
plugo1 2 years ago
I'm sorry but if you don't believe that the countless amounts of video and imagery taken of the moon's surface, including later-date satellite pictures taken of the landing sites, is enough to warrant the proof of the moon landings then you are simply stupid. Conspiracy theorists are generally just idiots; their backwards way of thinking is retarded and they are the bane of society. Please go and die.
KniFenForK 2 years ago
KniFenFork.
Yes, when this is proved beyond doubts that this Moon story of yours is a scam, you should be hung.
There is pictures taken of the landing sites, so you can see the stuff left behind.........?
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Why don't you hoax supporters stop nitpicking on the vague and sketchy detals that you keep grabbing onto like your life depends on it, and explain how some of the more obvious evidence that they were on the moon was faked?
mattmit 2 years ago 2
i wouldnt worry yourself with numbers .. its BS the yanks never got their.
MinefielDuk 2 years ago
Yes, a convenience store clerk has it all figured out. Amaze us with your calculations on why they didn't go to the moon, please.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
and Michael Jackson didn't make it although "the moon" sect was busy orchestrating the "moon walk" celebration.
Endogamy 2 years ago
Where was their fuel supply to not only leave the moon,but to boost their speed to catch up Apollo travelling thousands of miles an hour in orbit?
gordewar 2 years ago
Orbital velocity around the moon is very low, nowhere near "thousands of miles per hour", and at .165 Gravity, plenty of room for fuel onboard.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
Maybe. Apollo however, would require pro rata the amount of fuel , the third tank used to break free from Earth`s gravity , to enable it to break free from the moon`s one sixth gravity.
gordewar 2 years ago
Apollo capsule was already in orbit, the increase in speed to escape velocity of the moon is very small. All this has been gone over countless times, you're not going to come up with anything earth shaking. Hoaxtards just look foolish.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
Hoaxtard ? Is that a person who points out the bleeding obvious to those unable to work it out for themselves? Yep that`s me.
gordewar 2 years ago
Dammit....I forgot.
NewsDaily:Moon-lovers remember Apollo with radio chit-chat
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Here is what it says: "It takes around 2.5 seconds for a radio signal to reach the Moon and bounce back to another part of the Earth". It most definitely doesn't say it takes 2.5 to get there and 2.5 to come back. I guess "us believers" aren't in as much trouble as you thought, after all as you say "those people here should know they are playing with it."
Dstevenb 2 years ago
And before you mention the 5 seconds they mention in the article, you might want to remember that these ham operators are talking from the earth-to the earth via this method doubling the distances used on apollo.
Dstevenb 2 years ago
Dstevenb.
Doubling the distances, because this one channel......how can apollo answer a call from Houston before they have heard it.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
The 2.5 second event on the Boniecki tape which you seem to have a problem with has the delay time expected, as the article you forwarded me to confirms. By the way, may I ask why you give so much importance to the Boniecki tapes?
Dstevenb 2 years ago
Dstevenb.
The tape....very close to 2 seconds, delay time expected, you believers are clever arguers. You don't mind to lie - cheat - play dumb, what ever it takes.
It is you there claiming those here on youtube are edited.....so therefore Boniechi tapes are not, are they.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Well I'm glad you can see beyond the usual Youtube goings on and not need to resort to calling me a liar, or dumb, or a cheater. That is certainly a refreshing change and I am glad someone like you takes the lead and decides to debate rather than call the opponent names. Did you record the Boniecki tapes, you seem to know alot about them?
Dstevenb 2 years ago
Somebody help me out here: So how many seconds is 1.255 x 2 again? Wouldnt be 2.51 seconds would it? Isn't 2.51 very close to 2?
Dstevenb 2 years ago
Dstevenb.
Now you are as I say playing (playing ) dumb. This 2,51 is the absolutely lowest it can get, plus responds time. 2 seconds is halve a second lower included responds time, so what does it tell one there are free to wonder.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
OK. Which comment exactly is the one bugging you? Can you quote what is said? What is the repsonse from the moon. Is it highly articulate or a "yes" "no" or "OK" reposnse? you have to agree that being precise is important here, right?
Dstevenb 2 years ago
Actually, there is no set in stone reason why the delay has to be 2,51 seconds, or ~1,3 when discussing the response from the astronauts. It is possible to respond to a sentence before Houston has finished which is why we hear overlap of both parties talking at the same time. As I stated from the beginning.
Dstevenb 2 years ago
Dstevenb.
You say it is yours, did you record it......? are you Boniecki.....? are they not recorded by someone at the time, with all his bloodline there.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Now here is something for the believers, it's says a radio signal takes 2,5 second to get to the Moon, and 2,5 second to bounce back....that might be so in practical life. And those people here should know they are playing with it.
If that is so.....I don't know, but if so....you believers are in deep trouble.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
James.
The Mars Rover was a robot.....? there is not much development in going to Mars, what I have read NASA clearly says, they have a problem they can not solve yet....the radiation.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Comparing the radiation dose of a possibly 2 year Mars mission and a 2 week Apollo mission is absurd. For one thing, simple multiplication will tell you the total amount of possible exposure will be far greater.
And a mission to Mars will be guaranteed to encounter dangers Apollo didn't due to its short duration, like dangerous level solar storms.
What next, equate John Mauldins 6 feet of lead for an interstellar generation ship to an Apollo mission?
Oh wait. conspiracy theorist do that.
loperspest 2 years ago
Loperspest.
I have not compared a Mars mission with the Moon mission......?
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Loperspest.
By the way, What does it matter - what's the difference between 2 year and a 2 week......if one solar wind roast them.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
If you miss the dangerous level solar storm, then their is a big difference. It's all about playing the odds. Powerful enough solar events to be dangerous are rare, just like Earthquakes happen every day, yet almost all can only be detected by instruments, let alone felt, and least of all causing any damage. A 2 year mission to Mars is playing the game 52 times longer, and the House always wins. So it needs far more protection, and not just for long term exposure.
loperspest 2 years ago
didn't know there were so many paranoid schizophrenics going around.
Believe it screwballs-it happened
fokjock 2 years ago
totally fake
ejalal33 2 years ago
heehaaw ya nutter
fokjock 2 years ago
fake landing
OPELGDL 2 years ago
ALIENS OF THE MOON
C0DZ0R 2 years ago
The Government Faked the Moonlanding to find out How Fuckin stupid we are.
Notice since the "moon landing" they been doing more and more fucked up shit as time goes on.
TACO BELL SOUNDS GOOD. MAKE ME A TACO.
hamberg42 2 years ago
Hamberg.
They have known that for millennium. and they got 95 % of the people in the palm off their hand.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Go to......moon Landing A Fake or fact.
Kissinger - Rumfeld admit they staged the Moon landing.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
That footage, or the original footage where Kissinger and Rumsfeld 'admit it' is from a French mockumentary where the words of those men are manipulated in order to demonstrate spin. I doubt you'll see either of those chaps, who are still alive, admitting anything of the kind.
krisdevalle 2 years ago
Krisdevalle.
I don't know how real it is, but that they have manipulated the exact words.......well no, but have those chaps made a protest.....
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
You do know the producers of the show openly admit they edited the program to have Kissinger and Rumsfeld imply that, dont you? That's why they refer to their video project as a "MOCKUMENTARY".
Dstevenb 2 years ago
Dstevenb.
I have heard it, and I found it suspicious the way it is edited....the shooting of this guy on the Island....ha...ha...but I don't understand why those big shots are going along with it.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Yeah kill it guys - unless you can find creditable backups apart from that footage - you know, CNN or Reuters, wikipedia or the like then it's bad-ass spin and not fact. What we have here is French doco stating they've spun those words to look like the two of them admit fakery - and nothing else to back it up. No insults to you gentlemen, but that's the way it is so far.
krisdevalle 2 years ago
Kris.
And those big shots participated......could be. I have never heard it in the news, word or written. And that's make me wonder, but anyway it is clever made.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Congrats John...you fell for that mocumentary. HAAA!
You can't still be bitter about my use of the term dumbass to describe hoaxers?
CONTACTLIGHTTOMMY 2 years ago
johnsenkenn have a look on wikipedia under "Dark Side of the Moon" or its French title "Opération Lune". It explains how the show was made.
Dstevenb 2 years ago
Dstevenb.
Dark side of the moon, on Wikepedia......hmmmm.....Pink Floyd.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Look further down the disambiguation list. You'll see several things with the same name including a French mockumentary. That's the one you want.
Dstevenb 2 years ago
Dstevenb.
Where is it they refer to it as MOCKUMENTARY in the video....? don't remember it.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The evidence that they didn`'t go to the moon is crushing. Once people have seen it, there's nothing anyone can do to make them think they really went.
s1 (dot) zetaboards (dot) com/LooseChangeForums/topic/51606/1/
(check link for gaps)
Cosmored 2 years ago
You have provided no logical reasoning to back your position up.
The world is flat. Congradulations
hamberg42 2 years ago
Do you hoax dumbasses really think that you're the first people to notice..."anomalies" ???
People 10 times smarter than you taco builders have looked at all this stuff for decades before hoax dumbasses came on the scene.
Verdict...Apollo is 100% real.
Not a single pic or vid or moon rock or piece of data has ever been remotely considered fake.
The only people who find fakery are Taco Bell Scientists on friggin YT!
Do the math you dumbasses.
CONTACTLIGHTTOMMY 2 years ago
Go to, Apollo Moon Hoax? Dr.David Groves Analysis.
A well studied guy, any one arguing with him.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Groves is a creation of the hoax industry. A total fabrication.
Congrats on falling for it. Typical of the Taco Builder types. HAAAAAAA
Hoax dumbasses.
CONTACTLIGHTTOMMY 2 years ago
So thats right......what a goverment skirt hanging dumbass.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
If his methods truly are as is described here, then he may wear a nice suit and have a nice accent, but he lacks in his methods.
w w w [.] xmission [.] com/~jwindley/envradfilm [.] html
Besides, his claim that Apollo photos should be fogged is directly contradicted by the photographs returned to Earth by several Zond missions.
w w w [.] mentallandscape [.] com/C_CatalogMoon [.] htm
Unlike other craft that used scanned negatives or electronic cameras, Zond returned exposed film to Earth.
loperspest 2 years ago
Everyone copy that? We've just been called dumbasses by a fellow who can't even get propogation times correct from the moon.
Dstevenb 2 years ago
I se, I can't get it right, there is 1,3 seconds both ways, correct.
And who started to call dumbasses.
And such a clever guy should not waste time arguing with dumbasses, so let us cut it here.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
So let me get this right. You have no qualms calling every dumbasses, yet the second someone owns you good and proper you pike out and think its a good idea to end the topic? Its hardly my fault if you didnt understand (by your own admission no less) that you decided to debate with someone who knows what their talking about. BTW the Boniecki tapes are mine, kinda makes sense I'd known whats on them.
Dstevenb 2 years ago
Dstevenb.
Who started calling dumbasses, this contacttommy hardly know other words. I don't understand the.... what you call propogation ? so what is the rigt time propogation to the moon. Do you claim the right propogation is 1,3 seconds, and claim you are a wise guy with a great understanding, and I am a dumass because I don't get it....1,3 seconds kiss my.....
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Dstevenb.
I have asked you, what is it I cannot get right about, what you call propogation times from the moon.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Look up the speed of light. Figure out how long it takes light to travel from the moon to the earth. Radio waves travel at the speed of light. There's your delay, which matches the repsonse delay times of the communications. Look up "moon" on wiki and you'll see it all explained with an animation as well to help understand the delay.
Dstevenb 2 years ago
Dstevenb.
Do you say that the delay - silence between Houston and Moons responds is the time it takes for the signal to travel from the Moon.....? that is what I want to know, not all that rubbish...speed of light 300,000 k i have looked that up long ago, Is that yours...what you call propogation that I don't understand, but you do. So the delay you say is the time it takes to travel FROM the Moon, that is the correct propogation you say.........?
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
I say a signal takes ~1,3 seconds to travel from the moon. It is also possible for the moonwalkers to repsond before Houston finishes talking and you also hear overlap on the tapes. I say the signal from the moon takes ~1.3 seconds to get here. echo on fedback audio will be ~1.3x2 seconds. I hear that on McCandless' voice at certain points.
Dstevenb 2 years ago
Dstevenb.
Ahaa, so it cannot be less than 1,3 x 2 unless it is overlapping......so when there is less than 1,3 x 2 seconds ( no overlapping ) something are wrong right.....so what is the propogation that I don't understand.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
No. The delay is ~1.3 seconds. As it is a two-way open circuit reponses can be less than 1.3 seconds - there is nothing stopping either party from starting to talk before the other has finished inckluding the delay factor. Which is what I have said from the beginning. Let's just call delay, delay for now. Propagation is satellite TX terminology used when referencing delay.
Dstevenb 2 years ago
If the audio circuit was a single carrier where only one signal could occur at one time, in either direction only then could you claim a delay less than ~1.3 seconds is impossible. The Apollo S-band was not like that. Houston and the moon could transmit indepedently from each other. That is why you get delays less than ~1,3 sec and why overlapping happens.
Dstevenb 2 years ago
Dstevenb.
Aha...propagation......wheather they have one or two channel we can only hear one at the time. When Houston have done their talk, and the "Moon" answer Houstons talk, the Moon have to wait to hear Houston finish before the "Moon" can answer, so the pause got to be no less than 2,6 second...2,6 second in theories.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Go To:
First Moon Landing 1969
I explain why it looks fake in like 5 commetns
hamberg42 2 years ago
Where are the stars?
hamberg42 2 years ago
Are you being sarcastic?
If not...you're a dumbass. You very rarely see any stars on any pics or video from orbit. It's an optics thing...something you're too stupid to reseach.
If you did see stars on Apollo pictures, that would be an indication of fake.
Now get back to Taco Bell and fold some burritos.
CONTACTLIGHTTOMMY 2 years ago
I have a degree. I've seen enough pictures of space to know that the stars are usually visable. Not sure what is with the hostility. Mabey an educated response would have been more productive.
Anyways How is it to work at taco bell? I'm a professional, so folding tacos must be outside of my scope of practice compared to your grand knowledge, intellegence, and omniscent genius
Bro.
hamberg42 2 years ago
You've seen enough pics? That proves you're a dumbass. Show me one from a Soyuz mission.
I watch the Nasa channel all the time and there are hardly ever any stars visible even when the ISS or shuttle or Soyuz is on the dark side of the planet.
Nice try, but your bluff is called and you are left looking like the dumbass that all hoaxers are.
BTW...Battlestar Galactica episodes do not count. HAAAAAA
CONTACTLIGHTTOMMY 2 years ago
Many Space Shuttle,and Soyuz photos are available on line. Could you link to some showing stars? Thank you.
loperspest 2 years ago
just believe
St3v3z 2 years ago
fake?
Wudnt that make ALLLL these Nasa workers amazing actors for the TV and interviews and such?
Idiots.
YonOtto 2 years ago
You hoax believing dumbasses need to stop and think for a minute.
Do you really think you're the first ones to notice some "anomaly"?
If there was ANYTHING fake about Apollo, smart people would have seen it. None have.
All you hoax believers need to shut the garage door and start the car.
You are dumbasses. Too stupid to live.
CONTACTLIGHTTOMMY 2 years ago
You believing everything government telling you dumbasses should start to think, but you do not have the guts to do so. It would mean that you would have to cut the hand off your babysitter government.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
I question everything.
But a CT believed only by Taco Bell Scientists is not something I could fall for.
You have and that makes you a good CTSheeple. Back to your tacos. Dumbass.
CONTACTLIGHTTOMMY 2 years ago
No I have not, I don't know who he is never read anything about him dumbass.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
is there a part 2?
HPPcello2 2 years ago
BTW I am talking about the Boniecki tapes, which is what you referred to. 'I even gave the file name in the time check. I did not use this YT video as it isn't a raw feed transmission - its a highlighted tv show segment.
Dstevenb 2 years ago
By the way, this Boniecki fellow sounds like a fairly clued up guy. He must be an audio/TV engineer by the sounds of it.
Dstevenb 2 years ago
yep 1,5 seconds (well 1,28 to be exact)from the moon to the earth. Do you have another figure?
Dstevenb 2 years ago
Listen to the video, the reply from the "moon" is immediate......so this moon story is rubbish....it is a hoax....what else is the explanation, what is yours....ha....ha....
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
All public images (photographs) of the Earth's moon are taken tens, hundreds, and thousands of miles from it's surface. Even still, if there exists telescopes (satellites) that can photograph a cup on one's picnic table from space, why are there NO such close-up public photographs of the Earth's moon. I ask you, my fellow Americans, "Why is this"? Where are the detailed images of our nearest natural satellite? NASA is not to be trusted or taken seriously! I cannot stress this enough.
fullofstars1 2 years ago
Fulloofstars.
You are right, strange. you can only wonder why.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Which satellite can image a teacup on your table from outer space? Do you have a name or spec number? Or is it possible that no such satellite exists? Google earth BTW is made by aircraft photography.
Dstevenb 2 years ago
Dstevenb.
I once sew on TV something about what a satellite could do, and that was incredible, don't remember now, but have read that it can read the number plates.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Fergaloc
please dont let your lack of proof or ability to intelligently defend your point cause you to degenerate to insults and petty comments. Please have substance.
AMART1965 2 years ago
If they did land on the moon with 1969 technology - wow , it would be so easy now. Use the same 1969 equipment , as it works well, or use the better stuff of today.
Going to the moon now, will be a walk in the park...............unless they were and are telling porkies...........................
Hensen1954 2 years ago
I agree, the news release stated they were going to look for possible"future landing sites" and for water and test tempertures ect , ahhhh hast this supposedly already been done?? They are acting like its the first time to the moon.....shut my mouth....
AMART1965 2 years ago
You really should try to resist the temptation to publically demonstrate your ignorance. :)
fergaloc 2 years ago
Fergaloc
Could you publically demonstrate your knowledge.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Apollo landing sites were basically centred around the lunar equator. A quick look at Google Moon shows this. Let's say you were some hypothetical alien who had landed on Earth on the tropics, and were later planning to go to the Temperate and even Arctic latitudes. You would certainly want to do some surveying of this area first before you actually went to the expense of landing. it is the first time, for this new area. The moon may be much smaller then Earth, but it's still a big place.
loperspest 2 years ago
They went across the Atlantic in a dirigible in the 30's. Should be so simple now, right? Wrong. For one thing, in the intervening years much practical experience has been lost as engineers have died. As well, we would want to do more then replicate Hindenburg, we would want to do better, safer for one thing. Same with Constellation. Apollo stayed a maximum of 3 days on the moon. Constellation shortest planned mission is twice that long. Longer term solutions will be needed. It's not the same.
loperspest 2 years ago
Go for it now MrBangelstine
Hullawthere 2 years ago
And this fabulous course of event DID NOT happend at all, according to Chanal 4 UK, and some other nut cases that hates America and everything that comes form America.
The screwed up psychologist in Norway Berit Aas officially claimed the same thing!!!
Well, what can one do with nut cases?
Thanks for sharing.
Ed
mourningofrahaza 2 years ago
Hullawthere.
Any one there questioning what they been told by the state....hates America. That is rubbish, that is your way of putting pressure on people, not to open their mouth. It is a dishonest way of arguing.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
I agree with that, it is a very dishonest way of arguing.
On the same note, claiming those who argue Apollo was real are exclusively 'patriotic' jingoistic flag huggers, is equally dishonest.
I am not saying you are, I am just saying that if you flip a coin, it is still the same coin.
loperspest 2 years ago
Loperspest.
I don't know if they went there, but neither does the flag huggers. I just point at the thing there does not sound right. Like the delay in comunication......radiation......and a lot more.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
The dangers of radiation depend on dose, and type as well. Alpha particles, also known as helium nuclei, can be stopped by human skin. The Van Allen belts are mainly fairly high energy electrons and protons. I haven't been able find much on the penetration of protons, but electrons can be stopped by the walls of the CM, at least adequately for the few hours that Apollo spent going through them. Cosmos 110 sent 2 dogs in and out of the inner belts for 22 days, the total dosage was 12 rads.
loperspest 2 years ago
Loperspest.
Go, shuttle at the Van Allen Belts ( youtube )
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
Go, data on the apogee and parigee of Cosmos 110.
astronautix [.] com/chrono/19661 [.] htm
Go, a period source
time [.] com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835234,00 [.] html
Go two scientific papers varifying the 12 rad exposure.
oai [.] dtic [.] mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0693819
stormingmedia [.] us/91/9183/0918396 [.] html
loperspest 2 years ago
I meant mourninggofrahaza,
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
I hope that after the mission is over and no photo of any Eagle landing area or equip is shown for whatever reason it well make the landing "believers" start thinkin. This is perfect time for Nasa to come clean, we shall see, i say dont hold your breath.
AMART1965 2 years ago
The LRO will send LIVE 3d images back of the Apollo 11 site sometime in July...
The conspiracy theorists better find another hoax to push, how about the election of Obama...
Garcia0384 2 years ago
That is going to be interesting to see, but it is easy to fake.
Obama.....right from what I can see those US elections are faked, I saw on the net that people in some towns had voted for Ron Paul, but there were no votes officially. And all those money there were put behind him by the elitist should make you think.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
johnsenkenn, hello
Nasa will find an excuse to avoid the "landing site" you watch, literally.
Garcia0384, my friend regardless of what Nasa shows you will still believe one of the greatest hoaxes of all time, but lets wait for July to run its course.
AMART1965 2 years ago
obama is an alien, didnt you know.
amphixious 2 years ago
No I did not, I thought he just was a earthling deceiver.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
lol
AMART1965 2 years ago
AMART
I can not imagine that NASA will disclose them self.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
as of today 2 Lunar probes have just made the moons orbit and interestingly enough in the news release NOT one refrence of Apollo landings. I m curious to see how during this mission they are going to explain the lack of Apollo equp. or debris
AMART1965 2 years ago