If we faked the moon landing, we'd need to be pretty fucking confident that no other country would EVER try and land on the moon. Any country that did could prove that we never had.
Moon hoaxers "Sigh", I do not know if I should pity them or laugh at them. Just like a Creationist. And just like a creationist, I dismiss their lunacy ( pardon the pun). Thank you for pointing out the stupidity of moon hoaxers.
pause at 0 48, the screen is cut and paste for both end. knowing the height of the astronaut and the width of the flag cant show us how close they are, you have to know the distance between the flag pole and the person first. may be moon landing was real, may be not. but this argument doesnt prove nothing. by the way your voice is so annoyin. just type them.
maybe I'm missing something but I have a question. The flag didn't move when the first astronaut walked past it, yet it waved when the second one ran past it, as if since he was moving fast, the wind got a hold of it. hmmmm, doesn't sound like static to me, shouldn't it have moved the first time had that been the case?
@micah1116 Okay, "behind it" means "the side of the pole OPPOSITE that which the flag is actually sticking out," so I don't know what point you're trying to make here. But unless you've done the same sort of photogrammetry I did in this video, you have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for that conclusion.
Shane you are the man and I continue to direct people to look at your videos as I find them without doubt totally convincing. Keep up the good work mate.
lol i listened to this guy for 5 seconds, heard an american whining about "hoaxers" and had to pause to comment: if the flag is blowing in the wind, then ITS FAKE. nobody beleives theyre smarter than scientists. they beleive in common sense. theres no goddman air on the moon, if he brished up against it it wouldnt blow in the breeze. it would hardly move period. american propaganda, dont be fooled
@MrToiletface So called "common sense" is based on our everyday experiencehere on Planet Earth.
It is very unreliable as a guide to what happens, or should happen, anywhere else.
Scientists know this. If they want to make a breakthrough, they ditch "common sense" pretty quickly. Common sense tells us that what goes up always comes down, and that an object with no force applied to it cannot be moving (neither is true).
No flag on the moon ever "blew". It did swing like a pendulum.
@MrToiletface Herd of air/wind resistance? The atmosphere applies friction to objects that move through it. Without the friction anything that was put in motion would keep moving until something stopped it.
...The lowest part of the VA Belt is 100km, which is just 62 miles. Again, the insanity of hoaxtards can be debunked by JUST LOOKING STUFF UP!!!...
Insulting and misleading. The inner belt peaks between 2000 and 5000 km where it is MUCH stronger than the US created, southern atlantic anomaly (which can indeed sometimes be measured at 200km).
@shanedk DID NOT GO THROUGH THAT PART OF THE BELT!!! Idiot.
oh my. relax man, you sound like you're running high on cortisol (and adrenaline perhaps)
I mentioned the SAA because YOU came up with this ridiculous 100km of the VAB altitude. As i said the inner belt peaks at 2000-5000 km so the point raised by seeknthetruth was reasonable.
Why do YOU think ALL space shuttle missions (in fact all MANNED flight) stayed in LEO.
soyuz, vostok, voskhod, all salyut (including the military almaz)stations, mir, the old mercury project, gemini, skylab the chinese shenzhou, and more I don't know of , ALL manned missions stay neatly below the radiation in LEO. Because of fuel?? Fooling yourself?
Your constant insulting is lowering your already quite poor signal/noise ratio. stop it.
@losability LOTS of missions went into the belts, INCLUDING Gemini and several of the others you mentioned. If you're just going to lie, then what's the point?
can any moon defender here post any evidence of the moon landings (flags, lunar rovers, lem base, etc) from Japan’s Kaguya lunar orbiter which took several images of apollo site's 15 and 17.
uhhh, the LRO (from NASA) kinda defeats the purpose, right? but, the LRO shows little specs on the moon as lunar modules. not really the evidence i was looking for.
APOLLO FUN FACTS: One of the instruments onboard LRO is the Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER). "Not only will we measure the radiation, we will use plastics that mimic human tissue to look at how these highly energetic particles penetrate and interact with the human body," Harlan Spence, who is the Principal Investigator for CRaTER.
shouldn't we have tons of data relatong to radiation exposure since we went to the moon multiple times? Ohh wait. we didn't go
APOLLO FUN FACT: John Mauldin, a NASA physicist, said that astronauts would need at least two meters of thick shielding to protect against medium solar flares. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. One of the worst sun flares ever recorded happened in August 1972, which was between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions.
APOLLO FUN FACTS: In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, 350 miles, hundreds of miles below the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes.
@seeknthetruth The lowest part of the VA Belt is 100km, which is just 62 miles. Again, the insanity of hoaxtards can be debunked by JUST LOOKING STUFF UP!!!
1. in 1998, the space shuttle did not enter the van allen and astronauts experienced negative effects yet all apollo missions pass completely thru it? a brain?
2. no other country has had a manned space craft pass thru the van allen belts. a suggestion? why don't other countries use our technology from the 70's? a brain?
3. since the 70's, the usa has never fully entered or crossed van allen belts again? did our technology get worse in 40 yrs? a brain?
@seeknthetruth 1. LOTS of missions went through the belts. LOTS of them.
2. Bullshit. Russians did it a lot.
3. Also bullshit. In fact, it's well-known and measured that if you have 3 mm of aluminum shielding you'll get about 2,500 rem per YEAR--and that's in the INNER belt where radiation is highest!
and isn't it great how NASA developed special film inserted into the chest mounted cameras that could withstand the heavy radiation on the moon? oh wait, it was just run of the mill film. a brain?
@shanedk Nope. But as they don't engage in actual research, and instead stick to their own kind to "learn", they still haven't realised all this stuff has been debunked.
here's another question for anyone. if neil armstrong was the first man to touch the moon surface, and the LEM is behind him, where did the camera come from that recorded his first touch on the moon?
@seeknthetruth Sigh...It was on the instrument tray that Armstrong deployed before he descended the latter. Fortunately, NASA was smarter than hoaxtards so we were able to see this monumental event.
I mean, it's not like many of these answers aren't already compiled somewhere. Look at SkepticWikiDOTorg, or the BAUT forums.
why a sigh? is there a clip where the camera is first turned on, focused, tested or even neil saying camera deployed? and can you help me understand this. why are all you moon defenders so defensive? what's your stake in this to be so angry?
@seeknthetruth According to the ALSJ, at 109:21:18 Armstrong says: "Houston, the MESA came down all right." The next few entries cover them getting the TV signal going.
great. where's the video/audio of him saying this? it seems everything was recorded? again, why are you guys that seem to know everything about moon missions so defensive? its only a question, ok? relax.
@seeknthetruth All mission information, including flight plans, mission audio, every photograph and video sequence, mission transcripts and so on can be found at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.
@seeknthetruth I went to your profile and wanted to see what other kind of comments you made.
I suggest you check out the ALSJ though; it may suprise you, the amount of material collected there. I was just looking at a diagram of how the TV camera was deployed to catch the first step on the moon, something I'd never seen before.
I see however you have made the inane accusation that NASA pays people to argue on youtube. Are you actually serious about that?
i never mentioned that nasa pays anyone?? but it is not normal for a person to have this much interest in something that happened 40 yrs ago if there is no issue? just what is your stake in this and what do you have to lose if someone questions the moon landings? here's the big picture: what you don't realize is the fact that you moon defenders have to be here only opens the door up to the cover-up.
@seeknthetruth I enjoy winning debates; in regards to the Apollo moon landings, there is so much data, footage, science and engineering backups, that it's simply a pleasure to disseminate it.
Most moon landing doubters begin from a position of ignorance; sometimes when you can answer questions calmly and accurately, they begin to see how things actually happened. Other people live with a permanent confirmation bias; ignoring the facts presented in order to proudly cling to their beliefs.
so, it sounds like you have some sort of serious insecurity issue where you feel proud spending your days on youtube winning debates only about the moon landings? yep, that is perfectly normal.
my agenda is only the truth and just got on this page, but i saw your long string of "know it all" comments. remember, arrogance is right next door to ignorance. if the moon landings are already the accepted truth, you are here because....???
@seeknthetruth I'm here because I'm tired of people saying stupid shit like 'deadly radiation' and other people thinking that actually means something.
I enjoy fighting ignorance in my spare time, and I'm tired of people shitting on an achievement I find to be pretty damn awesome. Dudes got to the moon. 6 times. And there's people who don't understand how they did that, so they have to think it's fake instead of trying to understand how it actually was done. I wish people would try harder.
you sound very tired, but speaking of 'deadly radiation...' in 1998, the space shuttle reached an altitude of 350 miles above the earth. astronauts experience the effects of radiation penetrating the shuttle and their spece suits. the obvious question: with the technological advances since the 70's why did the astronauts experience these effects of radiation in the 90's when astronauts in the 70's did not? budget cuts on the shuttle outer skin i the 90's?
@seeknthetruth Actually the light flash phenomena was first recorded on the Apollo flights, and experiments on the frequency of these flashes have been ongoing on Mir, Skylab, and the ISS. If you google search for 'APOLLO LIGHT FLASH INVESTIGATIONS' you can find some of the first mentions of this.
@seeknthetruth The flashes of light were seen by the Apollo astronauts and were quite thoroughly studied and documented over the course of the Apollo missions. They were first reported over the radio by the Apollo 11 crew on their return from the moon. Subsequent crews were asked to pay special attention to the phenomena and describe it scientifically. Physics experiments involving photographic plates were performed to see whether the flashes were the result of heavy cosmic rays.
The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. 33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the 9 Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip. However, only 27 astronauts left Earth orbit. At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts. 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.
this kind of 'deadly radiation" evidence is why there is major doubt in the moon landings. but moon defenders like yourself arrogantly attacks to anyone who even questions the moon landings like there is no issue at all. that arrognace adds to the idea of a cover-up..and here we are. hello
@seeknthetruth What lunar probe or spacefaring nations' probe data lends weight to your claim that cosmic or solar radiation in space is deadly from a short term view?
I'm trying not to be arrogant; but I am mystified as to where you get your data? What evidence is there? If you can give me something to look at, then I will review it; but so far I've not seen one piece of evidence that discredits the measurements taken during the Apollo missions.
all moon shills are arrogant. it comes wioth the job. ok, i'm out. this has been very entertaining. that is, your dedication to defend the moon landings at all costs. nasa would be proud. lata
@seeknthetruth We're fans of the moon landings--as anyone should be. It's one of the most monumental events in the history of mankind. If fans can defend Harry Potter and Star Trek without being shills for J. K. Rowling or Gene Roddenberry, we too can defend that which we love without being paid to do it.
But, being a hoaxtard, you just can't take that. The ONLY reason for anyone to be against you is a vast conspiracy. Pathetic.
@hunchbacked The only hard thing about debunking them all is that hoaxtards have no problem coming up with 1000 crappy arguments, and no one could ever possibly get to them all. It's how they work; it's called the Shotgun Approach. You can say a really stupid thing in 5 seconds that takes 5 minutes to debunk, and even if the other person debunks 99 out of 100 really stupid ideas, they'll still cling on to that last one like it's their most important argument ever.
I can prove with sound arguments that the Apollo computer and the electronic diagrams which are in the Apollo journal make no sense.
They openly break basic rules.
I'm a professional computer engoneer working on hi-tech real-time systems; I have worked of a program to control an air-air missile on a hybrid computer (a computer close to the one Apollo was using in the seventies); I have also worked on the stabilization of helicopters.
Basic rules like you would find in a 1-G environment with one atmosphere of pressure?
Your purported authority is nothing of the kind, since even if we take your word for it your specialty is working with things IN AIR. There is NO AIR on the moon.
So, the fact that they are repetitive shows that it can't be defects of the film; if they were due to defects of the film, they would not be repetitive, they would be erratic, not repepetive like we see them on these photos.
And the lens is not chipped either, otherwise the mud spots would not have suddenly disappeared (the lens has just been cleaned).
Do you think normal that there is mud on the moon?
@hunchbacked It's not mud; it'd be way too small for that. Charlie Duke just got some schmutz on the lens. There was lots of it around; look at the pictures of equipment on the moon and see how dirty they got. It was probably much smaller than Duke's finger; just a bit of it apparently grazed the lens at some point.
Only someone as stupid as a hoaxtard would think this is evidence of some grand conspiracy.
@hunchbacked "Lunar dust is too dry to adhere to the lens."
Bullshit. Regolith adheres all over the place. Look at their boots and legs for a good example.
And I just checked: the schmutz is there on EVERY SINGLE PICTURE in that roll, start to finish. So that actually makes it more likely a problem on the magazine. It doesn't "brutally disappear"; it stays there for the entire roll.
@hunchbacked "Even if there was a problem with the roll, and none with the new roll, the spots would not have been repetitive in case of defects of the film"
If it was on the magazine itself, it absolutely would! It would be the equivalent of dirt on a photographic plate.
You DO NOT NEED HUMIDITY for dust to adhere. Try it with talcum powder and you'll see.
@hunchbacked Of course it would! Dirt or scratches on the front of the magazine would absolutely show up the same way on every photograph. In fact, one of Penn & Teller's books shows how you can do this with a Polaroid camera to make a ghost show up on the image!
Appeal to Common Sense is a fallacy. Especially when it's the "common sense" of a hoaxtard.
@seeknthetruth Idiot, the rover on the moon weighed under 300 pounds even WITH the astronauts on it! Look at the size of those tires--put less than 300 pounds of weight on tires like that and see how much they leave in the way of tracks!
Why do hoaxtards just not get that the moon is an alien world and things aren't going to work quite the same way there?
wait a sec. you think the rover did not leave any tracks at all but astronauts left footprints around it (see photo again)? and you're calling ME a moron? try again?
@seeknthetruth They left very shallow tracks that were easily obscured by the dust the rover and the astronauts kicked up.
The astronauts left footprints because feet are MUCH smaller than tires. If you don't even understand that pressure is a ratio between force and area, then you indeed have the ignorance of a hoaxtard!
so let me get this right. ALL tire tracks from a lunar rover with astronauts in it were cover up by random dust (in all three photos, BTW) but footprints from just the astronausts were not? really?
wait a sec. you think the rover did not leave any tracks at all, but the astronaust left footprint all around the rover (See Apollo15LunarRover photo again). did the astronauts weigh over 300 lbs? and you're calling ME a idiot??
that's great, but i am refering to photos i posted that show no tire tracks before or after the rover? can you offer a logical explanation? it seems the rover was planted there and was never moved.
@seeknthetruth Those pictures have LOTS of footprints around them--much fresher than the rover tracks would have been, since the astronauts would have (duh!) gotten out of the rover after parking it. (You HAVE to explain obvious things like this to hoaxtards...) Look at the video and you can see how much dust got kicked up as they walked. With no air to disperse it, it's going to fall nearby--and the rover tracks, of course, were nearby.
considering that footprints are clearly shown on the moon surface and the tread pattern of the tires, is there a logical explanation why there are no tracks shown? you haven't offered one yet. and this is the same case for the three photos i posted.
@seeknthetruth Make that a very STUPID liar. The angle of the first makes it unclear if you should be able to see any tracks, but there does appear to be a hump that looks like it might have been pushed up during braking. The second shows why tracks are likely to be obscured: Dust is clearly visible falling from the fenders. The third, of course, clearly shows the tracks of the front wheels, and you really can't see directly behind the rover at all.
what's with the insults from you guys? its as if you have something to lose here? a team of moon defenders? lol. here's the only reality. there are three photos and all can not be explained by angles, dust, or whatever. I posted another photo where tracks are clearly seen??? either the rover(s) was not moved at all or it was planted there. that's it. deal with it.
@seeknthetruth Look behind the front wheels of the rover in the Apollo 17 picture, stupid liar. You can clearly see the tracks left by the front wheels. You really have to LOOK at the pictures you're pretending don't show tire tracks, since so many of them show such clear tire tracks.
the big problem is that there are three photos showing no significant tracks and the other photos I posted show clear tracks behind the rover. logically, there should be tracks all the way to the LEM, not just behind the front wheels einstein. was the rover picked up from the LEM and dropped there? use your head. here's the other big problem. there is no logical explanation for this if the rover was on the moon..
@seeknthetruth You seer, stupid liar, you can't actually SEE behind the rover where it would have left tracks in the picture from Apollo 17 where you claim to not be able to see the very clear tire tracks. The only section of the tracks that are visible are those from the front wheels that are in front of the rear wheels. The rover itself blocks the view of the tracks behind it. You would know this if you had actually looked at the picture, instead of just assuming there were no tracks.
Apollo 17 photo-it seems there might be some tracks only after the front tires, but this doesn't explain how the rover moved from the LEM or its original location? the ground behind the rover clearly shows no tracks. this is simple logic.
Both Apollo15 photos-no visible tracks on either side of the rover. you failed to even address these two photos as if they don't matter? there MUST be tracks behind the front tires in all photos to prove the rover moved. there is not.
@seeknthetruth You see, stupid liar, you're getting tangled up in your own lies again. As I've pointed out REPEATEDLY, you CANNOT SEE BEHIND THE ROVER IN THE APOLLO 17 PICTURE. I've also already pointed out that it is far from clear that the viewing angle in the first picture would allow tracks to be seen, but a possible braking hump appears in front of the rear tire. As I already pointed out, a major cause of the tracks being obscured is shown in the second picture: Dust from the fenders.
and i said repeatedly now, the apollo 17 photo is not the only photo showing no tracks moron. sink that in einstein. the fact remains that there should be tracks leading to either the LEM or its original location, but the ground looks very smooth. and the two photos that i posted showing clear tracks proves that fender dust did not cover up the tracks. same moon in all photos, right? hilarious..
@seeknthetruth Stupid liar, we already KNOW that you cannot see behind the rover in the Apollo 17 picture, so there is no means of seeing the tracks behind it, but the tracks of the front wheels are clearly visible before they get to the back wheels.
The fact that the moon does not have identical surface characteristics in all locations seems to be far to sophisticated for your feeble brain.
just rinse n repeat the same line just about the apollo 17 photo, huh? the 2 apollo 15 photos? and wait. i thought it was fender dust? now, its the moon surface characteristices? lol can you reference the study conducted on the moon relating to surface characteristics and tire tracks left behind? i wait patiently. or did you pull that out of your ass? lmao at moon shill morons!!!
photo below. tracks clear as day behind the rover. where was the fender dust? any ideas? one sign of posessing deep ignorance is actually thinking you can explain this in absolute terms (has to be fender dust), when you weren't actually there, huh?...love these moon moron shills.
here's another photo were tracks are clearly seen. maybe the dust from the fenders covering up the tracks only happened "some" of the time? try again...
@seeknthetruth Indeed you should try again, since there are clear tire tracks in the foreground, and, despite the poor viewing angle, reduced dust (from being blown away by the exhaust during landing), and extensive compaction from all the footsteps near the LEM, you can still see some tire tracks leading towards where the rover is parked in the picture.
Another group of moon hoaxers is the Hare Krishna sect. Their scriptures say that the moon has celestial inhabitants, as do all the planets. Since none of these beings were encountered by the astronauts, the moon landing, according to their founder, A C Bhaktivedanta Swami, could not have occurred.
BTW Their scriptures say also that the sun is closer to the earth than the moon.
Socks in a dryer are attracted to a flag on the moon? ;) I hope the moon hoaxers don't keep you up at night. I too hate the fact that the moon is a hoax.
Nonsense! According to records, the flag measured not 30 by 48 inches, but 30 x 48 FEET. Using the well-established laws of perspective, this would place the astronauts, at 1 meter tall, over 1/4 mile away ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE FLAG. That we appear to see the flag obscured by the astronauts as they pass "in front of" the flag is just one more NASA screw-up. And if that weren't enough, a flag of that size would never had fit in the lander! How do you like them apples, Mr. Landy Moon?
rather than a gay little lame ass useless video this could all be done with math. Mr Pythagoras could show you a thing or two, or three if you include the hypotenuse.
And look at the fucking fore arms and hands on this bitch, he could slap you silly. His monster gloves are what hit the flag!
I like how at 0:30 you admit you are thoroughly trounced! Funny how you are a computer graphics whiz, all round science genius, and awesome public speaker, yet basic grammar eludes you. the pronoun they before trounced refers to the last person mentioned which is you.
Plus "stupid morons" are there any other type?
If you are so certain all this was true, why the need to make a video, why would you care? Next video debunk orgonite???? fairies? gremlins?
@NOmeansnoFAN Anyone who's not a clueless moron or a moon hoaxer (same thing) knows what the pronoun was referring to. This is just a pathetic evasion--which is ALL you hoaxtards have. You can only score cheap points because you don't have the evidence, WE DO.
@shanedk I haven't said a word about the moon shit fucker. Now thats out...have you seen the "well done" animation. He makes your look pathetic, and wrong.
Plus stupider ain't a word.
My point here is you know little of grammar so I highly doubt your astrophysics is up to speed either. If you are going to call people morons and stupid you should at least be proficient in your language of choice. "stupid is as stupid does"
@NOmeansnoFAN The word "they" appears NUMEROUS times in that sentence before the part that you're talking about; are you REALLY telling me that the pronoun would all of a sudden switch tracks just because of a noun used as the object of an intransitive verb? It suddenly becomes the subject without warning? That'd be some pretty bad writing!
No, it's a pathetic excuse to avoid the data, nothing more.
@shanedk no ...this (if you use cc which I did cause you sound like an annoying prick) is bad writing!!! I didn't invent the grammar rules, just know them. I know your education levels are pretty sad in the states, but it's ok. What you yanks lack in verbal skills you make up for in being fat and obnoxious. The rules for pronoun usage are fairly clear. could email you links for online lessons if you like. focus on this,rather than my other point, it hurts less.... "the data" lol
@NOmeansnoFAN I just checked my script: the word "they" appears in that sentence FOUR TIMES before the part you're referring to, and EACH AND EVERY TIME it refers to the hoaxtards. So why would it change all of a sudden just because I mentioned someone else? In between those references is also "the best scientists in the world," so are you saying from that point on "they" refers to those scientists and not the hoaxtards?
@shanedk it changes because you mention another noun, namely you. I covered this, you are wrong, it is simple yet you refuse to acknowledge this...as i stated...on-line lessons? only $29.95 paypal/mc's/cheque.
back to the "data" you are a joke, this video is about as scientific as Mormonism.
You know they state the moon launch proves the existence of god, the three days he stopped the earth needed to be taken into account, for the trajectory....LOL
@shanedk Pronouns usually refer to other words, called their antecedents because they (should) come before the pronoun. A pronoun's antecedent may be either a noun or another pronoun, but in either case, it must be clear what the antecedent is.
just admit it...lazy language, lazy science and let's get on with our day.
@NOmeansnoFAN The PROPER way to write the sentence the way YOU insist it means would be to NOT use the passive voice: "[they] don't just leave people in peace after thoroughly trouncing them." In THAT case, "them" DOES refer to "people" since both are objective. The way I phrased it was, "[they] don't just leave people in peace when they've been thoroughly trounced." In that case, both "they" and "they've" are NOMINATIVE, referring to the same people.
This is a great video. I know about Australia's involvment in the Apollo missions. The Dish at Parks, New South Wales did the work. They have a great exhibit about the Apollo missions. I usualy ask this question for moon haox believers "Why would all the people all over the world working on the Apollo Missions would keep this hoax a from the public for 40 years when they could make millions from the media? Would you pass that up?"
@Cinnarbar Even if they wanted to keep up a hoax, 40 years is a long time, and a lot of things can happen to the huge number of people involved. It's rather implausible someone wouldn't have been more desperate for money than they would have been to keep up a charade.
There's no way you can test this accurately unless you test it on the moon, so the bottom line is...He brought a small breeze with him while hopping buy that flag on the bungee string he was attached to. Boy, look at that sky in the background, it must have been a cloudy night calling for severe thunder storms...pwwuaahahahaa!!
@ironman197268 You must be talking about the starless sky. Missions are done during daylight on the moon becasue the night is far too cold. You can't see stars during the day, why, not only becasue of the earths atmosphere, but the sun is very bright. The magnitude of the stars is no match for the sun, so the sky will be black. The brightest of stars would be very faint and would be seen with a better quality image.
@Cinnarbar the only reason we can't see the stars in the day on earth is because of our atmosphere reflecting light. The moon videos..due to the exposure settings on the camera. if they were set to see the stars the foreground would be washed out.
@NOmeansnoFAN "the only reason we can't see the stars in the day on earth is because of our atmosphere reflecting light" that is the main part of it, but actually my comment is also true. Even if you were in space and look at the sun, you won't see any stars towards the sun. It would be a pitch black sky. But your comment is correct too. Also the lack of atmosphere allowing the bright light to bounce around dosn't help either.
@Cinnarbar not entirely correct. If you put your hand in front on the sun you would see stars. Just as the cameras aperture closes to correct the exposure, our eyes do the same.
If we faked the moon landing, we'd need to be pretty fucking confident that no other country would EVER try and land on the moon. Any country that did could prove that we never had.
AndrewDangerously 3 weeks ago
Moon hoaxers "Sigh", I do not know if I should pity them or laugh at them. Just like a Creationist. And just like a creationist, I dismiss their lunacy ( pardon the pun). Thank you for pointing out the stupidity of moon hoaxers.
longname25 3 weeks ago
pause at 0 48, the screen is cut and paste for both end. knowing the height of the astronaut and the width of the flag cant show us how close they are, you have to know the distance between the flag pole and the person first. may be moon landing was real, may be not. but this argument doesnt prove nothing. by the way your voice is so annoyin. just type them.
kakaibhrahimovic 2 months ago
@kakaibhrahimovic The height of the astronaut mandates his distance. Basic photogrammetry.
shanedk 2 months ago
Holly crap... why do you even waste time with these people...
uvauva2 3 months ago
@uvauva2 Because they won't leave me alone!
shanedk 3 months ago
why do people put limits on the brilliance of humanity? cant we just rejoice in the fact that they did it and be proud!!
aden302000 6 months ago 4
Comment removed
aden302000 6 months ago
maybe I'm missing something but I have a question. The flag didn't move when the first astronaut walked past it, yet it waved when the second one ran past it, as if since he was moving fast, the wind got a hold of it. hmmmm, doesn't sound like static to me, shouldn't it have moved the first time had that been the case?
micah1116 6 months ago
@micah1116 Not if he wasn't as close.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk well the first astronaut was much closer than the second one, so that creates a bit of a problem.
micah1116 6 months ago
@micah1116 Prove it.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk prove it? Watch the video, lol. It can't be anymore obvious the first astronaut was closer to it, he was hopping around right behind it.
micah1116 6 months ago
@micah1116 Okay, "behind it" means "the side of the pole OPPOSITE that which the flag is actually sticking out," so I don't know what point you're trying to make here. But unless you've done the same sort of photogrammetry I did in this video, you have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for that conclusion.
shanedk 6 months ago
Thank you for making the hoaxters look like the morons they really are!!!
obie1201 7 months ago 4
Shane you are the man and I continue to direct people to look at your videos as I find them without doubt totally convincing. Keep up the good work mate.
lyniseuk 8 months ago
Who financed all this animation?
Heath75032 8 months ago
@Heath75032 I did it myself.
shanedk 8 months ago
2:35 thats what she said
madsholthansen 9 months ago
Well done. Thank you for the upload.
CHSarahBs 9 months ago
lol i listened to this guy for 5 seconds, heard an american whining about "hoaxers" and had to pause to comment: if the flag is blowing in the wind, then ITS FAKE. nobody beleives theyre smarter than scientists. they beleive in common sense. theres no goddman air on the moon, if he brished up against it it wouldnt blow in the breeze. it would hardly move period. american propaganda, dont be fooled
MrToiletface 11 months ago
@MrToiletface
"it would hardly move period."
Hardly, it would swing like a pendulum when any torque was applied.
ytmoog 10 months ago
@MrToiletface So called "common sense" is based on our everyday experiencehere on Planet Earth.
It is very unreliable as a guide to what happens, or should happen, anywhere else.
Scientists know this. If they want to make a breakthrough, they ditch "common sense" pretty quickly. Common sense tells us that what goes up always comes down, and that an object with no force applied to it cannot be moving (neither is true).
No flag on the moon ever "blew". It did swing like a pendulum.
eventcone 9 months ago
@MrToiletface Herd of air/wind resistance? The atmosphere applies friction to objects that move through it. Without the friction anything that was put in motion would keep moving until something stopped it.
Evnyofdeath 9 months ago
...The lowest part of the VA Belt is 100km, which is just 62 miles. Again, the insanity of hoaxtards can be debunked by JUST LOOKING STUFF UP!!!...
Insulting and misleading. The inner belt peaks between 2000 and 5000 km where it is MUCH stronger than the US created, southern atlantic anomaly (which can indeed sometimes be measured at 200km).
losability 11 months ago
@losability But the Apollo astronauts DID NOT GO THROUGH THAT PART OF THE BELT!!!
Idiot.
And how on EARTH did the US create the SAA?
shanedk 11 months ago 2
@shanedk DID NOT GO THROUGH THAT PART OF THE BELT!!! Idiot.
oh my. relax man, you sound like you're running high on cortisol (and adrenaline perhaps)
I mentioned the SAA because YOU came up with this ridiculous 100km of the VAB altitude. As i said the inner belt peaks at 2000-5000 km so the point raised by seeknthetruth was reasonable.
Why do YOU think ALL space shuttle missions (in fact all MANNED flight) stayed in LEO.
losability 11 months ago
@losability Because the shuttle doesn't have enough fuel to go higher, idiot.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk
soyuz, vostok, voskhod, all salyut (including the military almaz)stations, mir, the old mercury project, gemini, skylab the chinese shenzhou, and more I don't know of , ALL manned missions stay neatly below the radiation in LEO. Because of fuel?? Fooling yourself?
Your constant insulting is lowering your already quite poor signal/noise ratio. stop it.
losability 11 months ago
@losability LOTS of missions went into the belts, INCLUDING Gemini and several of the others you mentioned. If you're just going to lie, then what's the point?
shanedk 11 months ago
@losability
"The inner belt peaks between 2000 and 5000 km"
Over the magnetic equator.
watch?v=YuH4rxda3Z4
This video gives a nice overview of the VAB and compares the Apollo 11 trajectory against it...
ytmoog 10 months ago
....they will insult you...
oh no, my poor shanedk
losability 11 months ago
LOL!
Licmycat 1 year ago
You mean I've been arguing with guys who are "less cognitive" than special needs kids?
Well...Thanks Shane for cluing me in. That explains it !
Luv your vids'.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
only jesus has the right to travel to the moon and plant flags
Samura1gamer 1 year ago
@Samura1gamer
If Jesus didnt want us to go then he wouldnt have let us invent rockets.
But why doesnt Moses have the right?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
can any moon defender here post any evidence of the moon landings (flags, lunar rovers, lem base, etc) from Japan’s Kaguya lunar orbiter which took several images of apollo site's 15 and 17.
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth I don't think Kaguya had enough resolution to, but there are TONS from the LRO.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
uhhh, the LRO (from NASA) kinda defeats the purpose, right? but, the LRO shows little specs on the moon as lunar modules. not really the evidence i was looking for.
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth No, they are NOT little specs; you can see clearly what they are, and you can even see the astronauts' foot trails.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
great. can you point them out to me?
nasa*gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites*html
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth
Google is your friend
pjt 1 year ago
@pjt
APOLLO FUN FACTS: One of the instruments onboard LRO is the Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER). "Not only will we measure the radiation, we will use plastics that mimic human tissue to look at how these highly energetic particles penetrate and interact with the human body," Harlan Spence, who is the Principal Investigator for CRaTER.
shouldn't we have tons of data relatong to radiation exposure since we went to the moon multiple times? Ohh wait. we didn't go
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth Yes, there ARE tons of data, and they're readily available from NASA's website. I've cited it several times.
Hoaxtards lose AGAIN.
shanedk 1 year ago
@pjt
APOLLO FUN FACT: John Mauldin, a NASA physicist, said that astronauts would need at least two meters of thick shielding to protect against medium solar flares. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. One of the worst sun flares ever recorded happened in August 1972, which was between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions.
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth And, cue response from radiation expert SpreadingTheMuse...
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
APOLLO FUN FACTS: In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, 350 miles, hundreds of miles below the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes.
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth The lowest part of the VA Belt is 100km, which is just 62 miles. Again, the insanity of hoaxtards can be debunked by JUST LOOKING STUFF UP!!!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
1. in 1998, the space shuttle did not enter the van allen and astronauts experienced negative effects yet all apollo missions pass completely thru it? a brain?
2. no other country has had a manned space craft pass thru the van allen belts. a suggestion? why don't other countries use our technology from the 70's? a brain?
3. since the 70's, the usa has never fully entered or crossed van allen belts again? did our technology get worse in 40 yrs? a brain?
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth 1. LOTS of missions went through the belts. LOTS of them.
2. Bullshit. Russians did it a lot.
3. Also bullshit. In fact, it's well-known and measured that if you have 3 mm of aluminum shielding you'll get about 2,500 rem per YEAR--and that's in the INNER belt where radiation is highest!
Moon hoaxers are MAJOR IDIOTS.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
and isn't it great how NASA developed special film inserted into the chest mounted cameras that could withstand the heavy radiation on the moon? oh wait, it was just run of the mill film. a brain?
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth Do you idiots have ANYTHING that wasn't debunked 20 years ago?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Nope. But as they don't engage in actual research, and instead stick to their own kind to "learn", they still haven't realised all this stuff has been debunked.
blehblehbleh86 1 year ago 2
@shanedk
after thorough evaluation NOTHING has been debunked.
losability 11 months ago
stupid, idiocy, hoaxtards, dumber than special need children; sigh, the usual moon defence.
losability 1 year ago
@losability did you even watch the video? If that is the case, then you are living material proof of what's been said
NScott45 1 year ago 2
here's another question for anyone. if neil armstrong was the first man to touch the moon surface, and the LEM is behind him, where did the camera come from that recorded his first touch on the moon?
watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth Sigh...It was on the instrument tray that Armstrong deployed before he descended the latter. Fortunately, NASA was smarter than hoaxtards so we were able to see this monumental event.
I mean, it's not like many of these answers aren't already compiled somewhere. Look at SkepticWikiDOTorg, or the BAUT forums.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
why a sigh? is there a clip where the camera is first turned on, focused, tested or even neil saying camera deployed? and can you help me understand this. why are all you moon defenders so defensive? what's your stake in this to be so angry?
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth Go to SkepticWiki and read all about it. That's the reason we created that site to begin with!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
does skepticwiki have at least an audio clip of neil saying, "camera deployed?" if not, i have no interest in going there. thanx tho
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth According to the ALSJ, at 109:21:18 Armstrong says: "Houston, the MESA came down all right." The next few entries cover them getting the TV signal going.
You could EASILY look this stuff up.
shanedk 1 year ago 10
@shanedk
great. where's the video/audio of him saying this? it seems everything was recorded? again, why are you guys that seem to know everything about moon missions so defensive? its only a question, ok? relax.
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth The ALSJ has all of the video and audio, if you'd bothered to look you wouldn't have needed to ask.
shanedk 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth All mission information, including flight plans, mission audio, every photograph and video sequence, mission transcripts and so on can be found at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@krisdevalle
you moon defenders cover alot of ground, huh? are you paid per youtube page or by post?
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth I went to your profile and wanted to see what other kind of comments you made.
I suggest you check out the ALSJ though; it may suprise you, the amount of material collected there. I was just looking at a diagram of how the TV camera was deployed to catch the first step on the moon, something I'd never seen before.
I see however you have made the inane accusation that NASA pays people to argue on youtube. Are you actually serious about that?
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@krisdevalle
i never mentioned that nasa pays anyone?? but it is not normal for a person to have this much interest in something that happened 40 yrs ago if there is no issue? just what is your stake in this and what do you have to lose if someone questions the moon landings? here's the big picture: what you don't realize is the fact that you moon defenders have to be here only opens the door up to the cover-up.
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth I enjoy winning debates; in regards to the Apollo moon landings, there is so much data, footage, science and engineering backups, that it's simply a pleasure to disseminate it.
Most moon landing doubters begin from a position of ignorance; sometimes when you can answer questions calmly and accurately, they begin to see how things actually happened. Other people live with a permanent confirmation bias; ignoring the facts presented in order to proudly cling to their beliefs.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@krisdevalle
so, it sounds like you have some sort of serious insecurity issue where you feel proud spending your days on youtube winning debates only about the moon landings? yep, that is perfectly normal.
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth You're here too, bro, pushing your own agenda. Are we so very different?
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@krisdevalle
my agenda is only the truth and just got on this page, but i saw your long string of "know it all" comments. remember, arrogance is right next door to ignorance. if the moon landings are already the accepted truth, you are here because....???
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth I'm here because I'm tired of people saying stupid shit like 'deadly radiation' and other people thinking that actually means something.
I enjoy fighting ignorance in my spare time, and I'm tired of people shitting on an achievement I find to be pretty damn awesome. Dudes got to the moon. 6 times. And there's people who don't understand how they did that, so they have to think it's fake instead of trying to understand how it actually was done. I wish people would try harder.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@krisdevalle
you sound very tired, but speaking of 'deadly radiation...' in 1998, the space shuttle reached an altitude of 350 miles above the earth. astronauts experience the effects of radiation penetrating the shuttle and their spece suits. the obvious question: with the technological advances since the 70's why did the astronauts experience these effects of radiation in the 90's when astronauts in the 70's did not? budget cuts on the shuttle outer skin i the 90's?
watch?v=dyl1LsB7Xr8
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth Actually the light flash phenomena was first recorded on the Apollo flights, and experiments on the frequency of these flashes have been ongoing on Mir, Skylab, and the ISS. If you google search for 'APOLLO LIGHT FLASH INVESTIGATIONS' you can find some of the first mentions of this.
So yes, Apollo astronauts did experience this.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth The flashes of light were seen by the Apollo astronauts and were quite thoroughly studied and documented over the course of the Apollo missions. They were first reported over the radio by the Apollo 11 crew on their return from the moon. Subsequent crews were asked to pay special attention to the phenomena and describe it scientifically. Physics experiments involving photographic plates were performed to see whether the flashes were the result of heavy cosmic rays.
TheFACTSRUS 1 year ago
The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. 33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the 9 Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip. However, only 27 astronauts left Earth orbit. At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts. 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.
TheFACTSRUS 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth The ISS enters the radiation belt multiple times a day. We KNOW what effect that radiation has.
shanedk 1 year ago
@krisdevalle
this kind of 'deadly radiation" evidence is why there is major doubt in the moon landings. but moon defenders like yourself arrogantly attacks to anyone who even questions the moon landings like there is no issue at all. that arrognace adds to the idea of a cover-up..and here we are. hello
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth What lunar probe or spacefaring nations' probe data lends weight to your claim that cosmic or solar radiation in space is deadly from a short term view?
I'm trying not to be arrogant; but I am mystified as to where you get your data? What evidence is there? If you can give me something to look at, then I will review it; but so far I've not seen one piece of evidence that discredits the measurements taken during the Apollo missions.
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@krisdevalle
all moon shills are arrogant. it comes wioth the job. ok, i'm out. this has been very entertaining. that is, your dedication to defend the moon landings at all costs. nasa would be proud. lata
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth That would be a 'no' on the 'do you have any data' question, then?
krisdevalle 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth "this kind of 'deadly radiation" evidence is why there is major doubt in the moon landings."
No, it's why there's major doubt in the intelligence and research skills of hoaxtards.
shanedk 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth "my agenda is only the truth"
Ah, so when YOU do it your agenda is the truth, when WE do it we must be shills for NASA. Even more pathetic!
shanedk 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth We're fans of the moon landings--as anyone should be. It's one of the most monumental events in the history of mankind. If fans can defend Harry Potter and Star Trek without being shills for J. K. Rowling or Gene Roddenberry, we too can defend that which we love without being paid to do it.
But, being a hoaxtard, you just can't take that. The ONLY reason for anyone to be against you is a vast conspiracy. Pathetic.
shanedk 1 year ago
sjanedk, the flag is not as close as you say.
If it was, we would not see it entitrely.
Here we even see its foot.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked "If it was, we would not see it entitrely."
WHAT? How would the flag being closer make you NOT see it???
shanedk 1 year ago
If all the arguments of the moon hoaxers are stupid, why don't you debunk them all, shanedk?
And believe me, you'll have a hell of a work if you want to debunk them all...and you'll also have to learn about computers and electronics.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked The only hard thing about debunking them all is that hoaxtards have no problem coming up with 1000 crappy arguments, and no one could ever possibly get to them all. It's how they work; it's called the Shotgun Approach. You can say a really stupid thing in 5 seconds that takes 5 minutes to debunk, and even if the other person debunks 99 out of 100 really stupid ideas, they'll still cling on to that last one like it's their most important argument ever.
shanedk 1 year ago
@hunchbacked Besides, it is NOT up to anyone else to refute their insanity. They have to prove what they say is true. And they CAN'T.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
I can prove with sound arguments that the Apollo computer and the electronic diagrams which are in the Apollo journal make no sense.
They openly break basic rules.
I'm a professional computer engoneer working on hi-tech real-time systems; I have worked of a program to control an air-air missile on a hybrid computer (a computer close to the one Apollo was using in the seventies); I have also worked on the stabilization of helicopters.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked "They openly break basic rules."
Basic rules like you would find in a 1-G environment with one atmosphere of pressure?
Your purported authority is nothing of the kind, since even if we take your word for it your specialty is working with things IN AIR. There is NO AIR on the moon.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
When I saw the operating system of the Apollo computer, I burst out of laughing: It's full of absurdities.
The electronic diagrams are also very comical.
The delusion is not on the side you think.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@shanedk
And shadnek, how do you explain the perfectly identical mud spots on the lens on some thirty photos in Apollo 16?
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked Reference, please.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
By reference, do you mean a scientific personality who would back up my claims?
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@shanedk
The photos with the repetitive mud spots in Apollo 16 go from AS16-116-18574 to AS16-116-18723.
Download them, and make them scroll with the preview of windows, and you'll see the repetitivity of the mud spots.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked Okay, I see them. So?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
So, the fact that they are repetitive shows that it can't be defects of the film; if they were due to defects of the film, they would not be repetitive, they would be erratic, not repepetive like we see them on these photos.
And the lens is not chipped either, otherwise the mud spots would not have suddenly disappeared (the lens has just been cleaned).
Do you think normal that there is mud on the moon?
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked It's not mud; it'd be way too small for that. Charlie Duke just got some schmutz on the lens. There was lots of it around; look at the pictures of equipment on the moon and see how dirty they got. It was probably much smaller than Duke's finger; just a bit of it apparently grazed the lens at some point.
Only someone as stupid as a hoaxtard would think this is evidence of some grand conspiracy.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
What do you call "schmutz"?
Lunar dust is too dry to adhere to the lens.
It would never have adhered so consistently on the lens for so many pictures; water is needed to create a such adherence.
Moreover, the spots would have gradually disappeared, not so brutally.
And how could the photographer know there were spots on his lens when he couldn't see his camera?
I believe in logic, not fantasy.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked "Lunar dust is too dry to adhere to the lens."
Bullshit. Regolith adheres all over the place. Look at their boots and legs for a good example.
And I just checked: the schmutz is there on EVERY SINGLE PICTURE in that roll, start to finish. So that actually makes it more likely a problem on the magazine. It doesn't "brutally disappear"; it stays there for the entire roll.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Even if there was a problem with the roll, and none with the new roll, the spots would not have been repetitive in case of defects of the film.
And regolith migh eventually adhere if it is impregnated with humidity which helps it to adhere.
But, in the void and absence of humidity, it would not adhere this way.
You may convince yourself it is normal, but you won't convince me.
Now, ask the mythbusters to make a demonstration if you want to convince me!
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked "Even if there was a problem with the roll, and none with the new roll, the spots would not have been repetitive in case of defects of the film"
If it was on the magazine itself, it absolutely would! It would be the equivalent of dirt on a photographic plate.
You DO NOT NEED HUMIDITY for dust to adhere. Try it with talcum powder and you'll see.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Even if there had been a problem with the magazine, it would not have been repetitive that way.
Find me an example of photos with repetitive spots this way, and a clean lens!
No need of humidity for dust to adhere in the void that much and for as long?
Prove it!
I won't believe you just on your word, my common sense tells me otherwise!
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked Of course it would! Dirt or scratches on the front of the magazine would absolutely show up the same way on every photograph. In fact, one of Penn & Teller's books shows how you can do this with a Polaroid camera to make a ghost show up on the image!
Appeal to Common Sense is a fallacy. Especially when it's the "common sense" of a hoaxtard.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Would it scratch exactly the same way each time?
Show me an example which confirms what you say, prove it it can happen the way you say it.
For the moment what you are saying is just an unproven assumption.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked "Would it scratch exactly the same way each time?"
It's only ONE set of dirt/scratches, IDIOT. It's on ONE magazine! It's there throughout the entire roll, and NOWHERE on any of the others.
It isn't hard to work out. Unless you're a stupid hoaxtard, that is.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
You see, you called me an idiot, and I didn't call you that way.
That's typical of an Apollogist, they are all the same.
I'm proud to be a "hoaxtard" like you call them, because the "hoaxtards" will win in the end.
It's nowhere else, because they played the trick just once, enough to show it was making no sense.
I say it's impossible that it can come from the film or the magazine.
You are in full delusion and denial like all the apollogists.
Be happy with your delusion.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked So, how come it's never professional photographers pointing out these problems?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
I first wanted to answer you in a comment, but my answer was much much too long.
So I have sent you a personal message which might enlighten you about the motives which push me to be a "moontard".
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked "And how could the photographer know there were spots on his lens when he couldn't see his camera?"
What makes you think he did? Why do you think so many pictures were taken with that camera without either of them bothering to do anything about it?
You wouldn't know logic if it bit you in the ass.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
It's not for nothing that I'm a moon hoaxer, it's a very unconfortable situation.
I used to laugh at conspirationists, I thought all conspiracies were stupid.
Then I have seen very troubling things about the moon hoax; then I dug, and the more I dug, and the more I found weird troubling things.
And now I have found so many things, that I have become...a conspirationist like you call them.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
Can anyone tell me why there's no tire tracks on this photo of the lunar rover? how did it get there? it looks like its posing for the camera...
en*wikipedia*org/wiki/File:Apollo15LunarRover*jpg
or this one?
en*wikipedia*org/wiki/File:Apollo15LunarRover2*jpg
or this one?
en*wikipedia*org/wiki/File:NASA_Apollo_17_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle*jpg
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth Idiot, the rover on the moon weighed under 300 pounds even WITH the astronauts on it! Look at the size of those tires--put less than 300 pounds of weight on tires like that and see how much they leave in the way of tracks!
Why do hoaxtards just not get that the moon is an alien world and things aren't going to work quite the same way there?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
wait a sec. you think the rover did not leave any tracks at all but astronauts left footprints around it (see photo again)? and you're calling ME a moron? try again?
en*wikipedia*org/wiki/File:Apollo15LunarRover*jpg
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth They left very shallow tracks that were easily obscured by the dust the rover and the astronauts kicked up.
The astronauts left footprints because feet are MUCH smaller than tires. If you don't even understand that pressure is a ratio between force and area, then you indeed have the ignorance of a hoaxtard!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
so let me get this right. ALL tire tracks from a lunar rover with astronauts in it were cover up by random dust (in all three photos, BTW) but footprints from just the astronausts were not? really?
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@shanedk
wait a sec. you think the rover did not leave any tracks at all, but the astronaust left footprint all around the rover (See Apollo15LunarRover photo again). did the astronauts weigh over 300 lbs? and you're calling ME a idiot??
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth And a liar, too, since there are rather a LOT of pictures from the missions using the rovers that show rather a LOT of rover tracks.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey
that's great, but i am refering to photos i posted that show no tire tracks before or after the rover? can you offer a logical explanation? it seems the rover was planted there and was never moved.
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth Those pictures have LOTS of footprints around them--much fresher than the rover tracks would have been, since the astronauts would have (duh!) gotten out of the rover after parking it. (You HAVE to explain obvious things like this to hoaxtards...) Look at the video and you can see how much dust got kicked up as they walked. With no air to disperse it, it's going to fall nearby--and the rover tracks, of course, were nearby.
shanedk 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth In fact, the videos clearly show the rover covering a lot of its own tracks as it went, kicking up dust behind it.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
considering that footprints are clearly shown on the moon surface and the tread pattern of the tires, is there a logical explanation why there are no tracks shown? you haven't offered one yet. and this is the same case for the three photos i posted.
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@shanedk
i guess the rover did not cover up these tracks when kicking dust behind it?
en*wikipedia*org/wiki/File:Apollo_16_LM_Orion*jpg
synlube*com/images/Lunar_Rover__Astronaut*gif
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth Did I say it ALWAYS did that? No, I did not.
You're just another stupid ignorant hoaxtard.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
actually, you didn't offer any logical explanation at all. and a word of advice. insults only make you look desperate and ignorant.
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@shanedk
i guess the rover did not cover up these tracks when kicking dust behind it? hmm?
en*wikipedia*org/wiki/File:Apollo_16_LM_Orion*jpg
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@shanedk
tracks not covered up dust...
synlube*com/images/Lunar_Rover__Astronaut*gif
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth Make that a very STUPID liar. The angle of the first makes it unclear if you should be able to see any tracks, but there does appear to be a hump that looks like it might have been pushed up during braking. The second shows why tracks are likely to be obscured: Dust is clearly visible falling from the fenders. The third, of course, clearly shows the tracks of the front wheels, and you really can't see directly behind the rover at all.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey
what's with the insults from you guys? its as if you have something to lose here? a team of moon defenders? lol. here's the only reality. there are three photos and all can not be explained by angles, dust, or whatever. I posted another photo where tracks are clearly seen??? either the rover(s) was not moved at all or it was planted there. that's it. deal with it.
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth Look behind the front wheels of the rover in the Apollo 17 picture, stupid liar. You can clearly see the tracks left by the front wheels. You really have to LOOK at the pictures you're pretending don't show tire tracks, since so many of them show such clear tire tracks.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey
the big problem is that there are three photos showing no significant tracks and the other photos I posted show clear tracks behind the rover. logically, there should be tracks all the way to the LEM, not just behind the front wheels einstein. was the rover picked up from the LEM and dropped there? use your head. here's the other big problem. there is no logical explanation for this if the rover was on the moon..
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth You seer, stupid liar, you can't actually SEE behind the rover where it would have left tracks in the picture from Apollo 17 where you claim to not be able to see the very clear tire tracks. The only section of the tracks that are visible are those from the front wheels that are in front of the rear wheels. The rover itself blocks the view of the tracks behind it. You would know this if you had actually looked at the picture, instead of just assuming there were no tracks.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey
Apollo 17 photo-it seems there might be some tracks only after the front tires, but this doesn't explain how the rover moved from the LEM or its original location? the ground behind the rover clearly shows no tracks. this is simple logic.
Both Apollo15 photos-no visible tracks on either side of the rover. you failed to even address these two photos as if they don't matter? there MUST be tracks behind the front tires in all photos to prove the rover moved. there is not.
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth You see, stupid liar, you're getting tangled up in your own lies again. As I've pointed out REPEATEDLY, you CANNOT SEE BEHIND THE ROVER IN THE APOLLO 17 PICTURE. I've also already pointed out that it is far from clear that the viewing angle in the first picture would allow tracks to be seen, but a possible braking hump appears in front of the rear tire. As I already pointed out, a major cause of the tracks being obscured is shown in the second picture: Dust from the fenders.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey
and i said repeatedly now, the apollo 17 photo is not the only photo showing no tracks moron. sink that in einstein. the fact remains that there should be tracks leading to either the LEM or its original location, but the ground looks very smooth. and the two photos that i posted showing clear tracks proves that fender dust did not cover up the tracks. same moon in all photos, right? hilarious..
.
en*wikipedia*org/wiki/File:Apollo_16_LM_Orion*jpg
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth Stupid liar, we already KNOW that you cannot see behind the rover in the Apollo 17 picture, so there is no means of seeing the tracks behind it, but the tracks of the front wheels are clearly visible before they get to the back wheels.
The fact that the moon does not have identical surface characteristics in all locations seems to be far to sophisticated for your feeble brain.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey
just rinse n repeat the same line just about the apollo 17 photo, huh? the 2 apollo 15 photos? and wait. i thought it was fender dust? now, its the moon surface characteristices? lol can you reference the study conducted on the moon relating to surface characteristics and tire tracks left behind? i wait patiently. or did you pull that out of your ass? lmao at moon shill morons!!!
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@evensgrey
photo below. tracks clear as day behind the rover. where was the fender dust? any ideas? one sign of posessing deep ignorance is actually thinking you can explain this in absolute terms (has to be fender dust), when you weren't actually there, huh?...love these moon moron shills.
synlube*com/images/Lunar_Rover__Astronaut*gif
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@evensgrey
here's another photo were tracks are clearly seen. maybe the dust from the fenders covering up the tracks only happened "some" of the time? try again...
en*wikipedia*org/wiki/File:Apollo_16_LM_Orion*jpg
seeknthetruth 1 year ago
@seeknthetruth Indeed you should try again, since there are clear tire tracks in the foreground, and, despite the poor viewing angle, reduced dust (from being blown away by the exhaust during landing), and extensive compaction from all the footsteps near the LEM, you can still see some tire tracks leading towards where the rover is parked in the picture.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@shanedk
Another group of moon hoaxers is the Hare Krishna sect. Their scriptures say that the moon has celestial inhabitants, as do all the planets. Since none of these beings were encountered by the astronauts, the moon landing, according to their founder, A C Bhaktivedanta Swami, could not have occurred.
BTW Their scriptures say also that the sun is closer to the earth than the moon.
Lohitaksha 1 year ago
Socks in a dryer are attracted to a flag on the moon? ;) I hope the moon hoaxers don't keep you up at night. I too hate the fact that the moon is a hoax.
Sadochrist 1 year ago
Why not just let these morons pass away? Trying to convince a moron is like asking Glen Beck to think before he speaks, it's NEVER going to happen.
joetylerdale 1 year ago
yeey, you were right! there's conspirationists around here
De4sher 1 year ago
Nonsense! According to records, the flag measured not 30 by 48 inches, but 30 x 48 FEET. Using the well-established laws of perspective, this would place the astronauts, at 1 meter tall, over 1/4 mile away ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE FLAG. That we appear to see the flag obscured by the astronauts as they pass "in front of" the flag is just one more NASA screw-up. And if that weren't enough, a flag of that size would never had fit in the lander! How do you like them apples, Mr. Landy Moon?
JimmyFaust 1 year ago
@JimmyFaust Makes just as much sense as any other moon hoax theory...
shanedk 1 year ago
rather than a gay little lame ass useless video this could all be done with math. Mr Pythagoras could show you a thing or two, or three if you include the hypotenuse.
And look at the fucking fore arms and hands on this bitch, he could slap you silly. His monster gloves are what hit the flag!
How much time did you WASTE on this shit, Spock?
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
I like how at 0:30 you admit you are thoroughly trounced! Funny how you are a computer graphics whiz, all round science genius, and awesome public speaker, yet basic grammar eludes you. the pronoun they before trounced refers to the last person mentioned which is you.
Plus "stupid morons" are there any other type?
If you are so certain all this was true, why the need to make a video, why would you care? Next video debunk orgonite???? fairies? gremlins?
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN Uh, no, "they" is PLURAL, idiot; "I" is singular.
Hoaxtards just get stupider and stupider...
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk UHMMM NOT EVEN WHAT I WAS REFERING TO FOOL. AND WHY DON'T YOU ADDRESS THE REST OF THE COMMENT PUTZ?
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@shanedk "...and generally don't just leave people in peace when they've been thoroughly trounced" .... "they've" refers to "people" which is you.
grammar 101
they and I ??? wtf are you going off about?
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN Anyone who's not a clueless moron or a moon hoaxer (same thing) knows what the pronoun was referring to. This is just a pathetic evasion--which is ALL you hoaxtards have. You can only score cheap points because you don't have the evidence, WE DO.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I haven't said a word about the moon shit fucker. Now thats out...have you seen the "well done" animation. He makes your look pathetic, and wrong.
Plus stupider ain't a word.
My point here is you know little of grammar so I highly doubt your astrophysics is up to speed either. If you are going to call people morons and stupid you should at least be proficient in your language of choice. "stupid is as stupid does"
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN The word "they" appears NUMEROUS times in that sentence before the part that you're talking about; are you REALLY telling me that the pronoun would all of a sudden switch tracks just because of a noun used as the object of an intransitive verb? It suddenly becomes the subject without warning? That'd be some pretty bad writing!
No, it's a pathetic excuse to avoid the data, nothing more.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk no ...this (if you use cc which I did cause you sound like an annoying prick) is bad writing!!! I didn't invent the grammar rules, just know them. I know your education levels are pretty sad in the states, but it's ok. What you yanks lack in verbal skills you make up for in being fat and obnoxious. The rules for pronoun usage are fairly clear. could email you links for online lessons if you like. focus on this,rather than my other point, it hurts less.... "the data" lol
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN I just checked my script: the word "they" appears in that sentence FOUR TIMES before the part you're referring to, and EACH AND EVERY TIME it refers to the hoaxtards. So why would it change all of a sudden just because I mentioned someone else? In between those references is also "the best scientists in the world," so are you saying from that point on "they" refers to those scientists and not the hoaxtards?
No, this is a pathetic excuse, nothing more.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk it changes because you mention another noun, namely you. I covered this, you are wrong, it is simple yet you refuse to acknowledge this...as i stated...on-line lessons? only $29.95 paypal/mc's/cheque.
back to the "data" you are a joke, this video is about as scientific as Mormonism.
You know they state the moon launch proves the existence of god, the three days he stopped the earth needed to be taken into account, for the trajectory....LOL
About as accurate as this vid!
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@shanedk Pronouns usually refer to other words, called their antecedents because they (should) come before the pronoun. A pronoun's antecedent may be either a noun or another pronoun, but in either case, it must be clear what the antecedent is.
just admit it...lazy language, lazy science and let's get on with our day.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN The PROPER way to write the sentence the way YOU insist it means would be to NOT use the passive voice: "[they] don't just leave people in peace after thoroughly trouncing them." In THAT case, "them" DOES refer to "people" since both are objective. The way I phrased it was, "[they] don't just leave people in peace when they've been thoroughly trounced." In that case, both "they" and "they've" are NOMINATIVE, referring to the same people.
Again, maybe remedial English is for you.
shanedk 1 year ago
This is a great video. I know about Australia's involvment in the Apollo missions. The Dish at Parks, New South Wales did the work. They have a great exhibit about the Apollo missions. I usualy ask this question for moon haox believers "Why would all the people all over the world working on the Apollo Missions would keep this hoax a from the public for 40 years when they could make millions from the media? Would you pass that up?"
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar Even if they wanted to keep up a hoax, 40 years is a long time, and a lot of things can happen to the huge number of people involved. It's rather implausible someone wouldn't have been more desperate for money than they would have been to keep up a charade.
evensgrey 1 year ago
You didn't convince me!
hunchbacked 1 year ago
There's no way you can test this accurately unless you test it on the moon, so the bottom line is...He brought a small breeze with him while hopping buy that flag on the bungee string he was attached to. Boy, look at that sky in the background, it must have been a cloudy night calling for severe thunder storms...pwwuaahahahaa!!
ironman197268 1 year ago
@ironman197268 You must be talking about the starless sky. Missions are done during daylight on the moon becasue the night is far too cold. You can't see stars during the day, why, not only becasue of the earths atmosphere, but the sun is very bright. The magnitude of the stars is no match for the sun, so the sky will be black. The brightest of stars would be very faint and would be seen with a better quality image.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar the only reason we can't see the stars in the day on earth is because of our atmosphere reflecting light. The moon videos..due to the exposure settings on the camera. if they were set to see the stars the foreground would be washed out.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago
Comment removed
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@NOmeansnoFAN "the only reason we can't see the stars in the day on earth is because of our atmosphere reflecting light" that is the main part of it, but actually my comment is also true. Even if you were in space and look at the sun, you won't see any stars towards the sun. It would be a pitch black sky. But your comment is correct too. Also the lack of atmosphere allowing the bright light to bounce around dosn't help either.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar not entirely correct. If you put your hand in front on the sun you would see stars. Just as the cameras aperture closes to correct the exposure, our eyes do the same.
NOmeansnoFAN 1 year ago