I love this episode, but really, I don't see why they bothered tackling a conspiracy. If there really WERE a conspiracy, do you think there'd be any chance they could release this episode on public television? And there are just too many opportunities for hoaxers to go "Nasa rigged their experiments with the stuff they gave them!"
@rjpare - Have you seen the LRO photos of the landing sites? If not, you can see them here :)
/watch?v=PTeM4ZqEKR4
The moon is back on the agenda, with interest from many nations resulting in more probes and even rovers from the USA, China, Japan, India and Europe in the near future, hence even clearer photos of the landing sites. China is likely to be the second nation to land on the moon over the next few decades, helping to push the USA to return too (but more than Apollo).
@Contevent - Well, that episode is over 3.5 years old now, more than enough time for others to carry out the same experiments to prove them wrong. In fact, in 2003, a documentary did similar experiments as MythBusters, where they had nothing to do with NASA and yet they arrived at the same conclusions as MythBusters. Again, nearly a decade later, no-one has shown their experiments to be wrong, which suggests they've successfully debunked those claims :)
@Contevent NASA had no problem with it because they had nothing to hide, they knew that some conspiracy theorist would turn around to see the obvious truth from people such as the mythbusters. its a win for common sense and NASA
@stewiee7999 That was not my point. I was saying that it was intriguing that the mythbusters had used tools from the NASA to test a hoax that could potentially disgarced NASA. Of course, for the tests, they needed those tools, so I was wondering why they didn't show how they tested their tools first, to be sur NASA wasn't trying to trick the result.
In the end, I think this is because they lacked time.
See youtube vid. Dark mission 1. You will see real footage of astroNOTs faking halfway to the moon. Sally Ride said it would take decades to CREATE tech to go to moon. Current x-ray photos of the moon? Killer x-rays. How many air tanks were in the plss (backpack)? Temps soar to 200° on the moon. What kind of a/c unit would fit in the plss? Ever see an astroNOT sweat?
Ever sit in a car, 90°, no a/c?
Don't you want to know who really made the one way trip?
@phase57 - Ah yes, Dark Mission 1, yet another moan hoax film where they were caught deliberately lying :) Provide the exact quote from Sally Ride please. And killer X-rays? The X-ray levels in low earth orbit is the SAME as the X-ray levels on the moon! The temperature in low earth orbit ranges from -250F to 250F, and yet astronauts have been out on spacewalks under those conditions for up to 9 hours (including from the ISS and Shuttle) since 1965!! So why would it be a problem on the moon? :-|
@phase57 - And regarding Dark Mission's ridiculous earth colour transparency claim (sorry, but you have to be rather naive to believe that one), the following video clearly debunks their claim, and similar claims;
/watch?v=2OnZwqc-96Y
So in fact, they were halfway to the moon, as clearly shown by the footage documentary's like Dark Mission 1 conveniently leaves out, the same footage the moon hoax documentary "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" deliberately lies about. :)
@dreamdiction The moon hoax is more than busted, get over it! And learn some logic, think for yourself instead of believing a bunch of bored kids making up ridiculous lies to push conspiracy.
@ettoremazza7 That site has more false data, mistakes, lies & all around lack of logic than a squid teaching at a university. The hoax is busted, get over it!
DO NOT FEED DeadJesus100 the troll. Don't. Don't even go to his/her channel. Just completely and absolutely ignore him/her.
Add "/reportabuse" to the end of URL like this: "youtube,c0m/reportabuse" to report his/her comments and get his/her account suspended for e.g. spamming among other things.
If you're still not convinced, try typing these words on GOOGLE! (... Go and read up on the first site on the list that gives you GOOGLE!) ...... THE MOON LANDING HOAX ....
HOW TO WIN IN A COURT OF LAW ... WITHOUT A LAWYER!
If you're still not convinced, try typing these words on GOOGLE! (... Go and read up on the first site on the list that gives you GOOGLE!) ...... THE MOON LANDING HOAX ....
HOW TO WIN IN A COURT OF LAW ... WITHOUT A LAWYER!
Try typing these words on GOOGLE: ( APOLLO Research
Accepted the view, held by the Majority, named Is that NASA sent astronauts to the Moon and returned to Earth Them Safely - as reported by the space agency, as seen on TV and in the Apollo photos. )
Try typing these words on GOOGLE: ( APOLLO Research
Accepted the view, held by the Majority, named Is that NASA sent astronauts to the Moon and returned to Earth Them Safely - as reported by the space agency, as seen on TV and in the Apollo photos. )
@mojoeyFTW - Not quite my friend, I was specifying the number of probes sent rather than the success rate, but even then I believe the moon comes out on top for both measures. Most people are unaware of large number of probes sent to the moon by the USA and USSR alone, and then by other nations, hence google search "Exploration of the Moon" and click on the first link found (Wiki I know, but good info just the same :-)). Google search "Exploration of Mars" for similar Wiki info.
@neoverse - Here's a documentary made 5-6 years before that episode of MythBusters that debunked many of the same claims MBs debunked, plus some MBs didn't look at;
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
No NASA involvement there and yet they arrive at the same conclusions, hence debunking a number of moon hoax claims. What I find interesting is that after all these years, none of the moon hoax film makers (or anyone else) has carried out those same experiments to prove them wrong.
@dreamdiction - Then state which of their experiments are wrong, and how they are wrong please. That episode was first aired 3.5 years ago, so why haven't any moon hoax believers (film makers in particular) carried out the same experiments to prove MBs wrong. Are you saying the astronauts would be black inside the LEM's shadow? That the shadows *must* all be parallel? That the flag wouldn't move that way in a vacuum? etc. If so, where's the demonstrations from others as proof?
@MTMind2 The short skinny Hijackers (9 still alive) somehow kicked-in the reinforced Anti-Hijack Cockpit door so an incompetent Cessna pilot could fly a fast descending tight corkscrew turn without any course adjustments, levelling out precisely at ground level without touching the lawn, hit the only re-enforced Pentagon section holding the audit records of the missing $2 Trillion, leaving no debris other than a few clean pieces on the lawn for an FBI photo opportunity.USA lies about everything.
@dreamdiction - Don't resort to strawman arguments please, this is not about 9/11 this is about the moon landings. You claimed MBs are shills, and so I'm asking you to prove it by showing that the experiments they carried out are wrong. Whether you believe the moon landings were real or not is irrelevent, MBs successfully debunked those particular hoax claims, therefore if you stand by your claim, provide evidence of the same experiements being done by others that contradicts MBs.
@MTMind2 The Pentagon was hit by a Boeing which blasted through 3 large office blocks all the way to C Ring, but without the wings, engines or tail leaving any scratch on the outer Pentagon wall because the fuel filled wings folded up and went through the same 16ft diameter hole as the fuselage.
Americans lie about everything.
All light from the sun is Collimated Light with parallel rays therefore all shadows on the earth and moon must be parallel.
@loperspest@MTMind2 OK, here's the deal, I will agree that shadow angles are NOT evidence the Apollo moon landings were faked, on condition that you agree that the Pentagon was NOT hit by a Boeing 757, American Airlines Flight 77, on 9/11. (see my previous 3 comments below)
I don't know enough about 9/11 to really give an informed answer to that. However, if you look at the examples I gave, (remove the spaces and replace the asterisks with periods) instead of insisting something about an unrelated conspiracy theory you'll find plenty of examples of non-parallel shadows. Which demonstrates quite equivocally that shadow angles are not evidence of a multiple light sources and hence a hoax.
@loperspest I have already looked at the photo links you provided. You can read my previous 3 comments below and watch my video link of the Pentagon Firefighters on 911, then tell me if you believe the 9/11 Pentagon attack was real or faked.
I showed that shadow angles can, contrary to your claim, be non-parallel even with only sunlight. Truth is not negotiable. It is or it isn't.
And the links I provided show that, as far as claims that non-parallel shadows in Apollo material is evidence of lighting that could only happen in a studio, you are wrong.
Get over it. I've been wrong before, you've been wrong before, it happens.
I don't care enough about 9/11 to care who did it and how.
@loperspest I have already said I am prepared to agree that shadow angles are NOT evidence that the Apollo moon landings were faked. You care deeply about the USA landing on the moon, but you say you don't care about the possibly that the US Government murdered 3,000 of their own people on 9/11 so as to falsely justify murdering half a million Muslims to steal their Oil. I suppose you also believe that WTC 7 suffered from a broken heart and committed suicide in sympathy with WTC buildings 1&2 ?
It doesn't matter what you are prepared to agree with, non-parallel shadows in themselves not being evidence is a demonstrable fact, one that I demonstrated. One doesn't prepare to agree that gravity is what makes you fall, it just is.
I don't care enough about 9/11 to get sucked into a discussion on an alternate topic that I have not researched enough to form an informed opinion on. Stay on topic.
@loperspest So you can post links to panaramio pictures of angled tree shadows on snow covered hillsides, but in the ten years since 9/11 you never even felt sufficiently curious to look into the hundreds of 9/11 inside job websites, books and videos?
Perhaps you believe the absurd conspiracy theory that 9/11 was carried out by men in a cave? Perhaps you don't know that the Lavon Affair PROVES Israelis are lying criminal scumbags who kill their friends so they can falsely blame their enemies.
@dreamdiction Space travel was a childhood interest of mine. I read every book I could on the topic. When I first heard about the conspiracy theory about the coolest manned mission ever, going to the moon, it reignited that childhood interest, forcing me to look deep and research everywhere I could on the topic, connecting with other space exploration aficionados on various forums.
I find that much more interesting than discussing who killed thousands of people and how.
@loperspest You have been outted as one of the 1000s of fulltime youtube usernames who work hard to distract attention from all the US government lies, Apollo, JFK, Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11, etc. Americans lie about absolutely everything and American government shills like Mythbuster faggots and thousands of others, all work hard to stop everyone realising that Americans and Israelis lie about everything all the time. A ton of thermite can’t burn through a car? - yeah right.
This has nothing to do with Apollo, but of you disagree with the results of the experiment, do it yourself. I would be fascinated to see the effect of a ton of thermite on a car again.
@loperspest Here’s some reality to jolt you out of your immature autistic space cadet fantasies. Americans and Israelis lie about everything all the time to deflect attention from the fact that Americans and Israelis are colonial imperialists who murder and steal for profit.
@dreamdiction - Why should acceptance or rejection of the shadow angles hoax claim be conditional? You either accept it or you don't, it's not a matter for negotiation :) And again, as I mentioned before, this topic is about Apollo hoax claims, not 9/11, hence the moon landings is what I'm HERE to talk about. If I wanted to discuss 9/11, then I'd go to a 9/11 topic. Feel free to invite people to join you in a 9/11 topic, but right here, the moon landings is all I'm interested in.
@MTMind2 You falsely claim to be a patriotic American who defends USA Space achievements, but you totally contradict yourself by showing no interest or concern for the destruction of American democracy by Zionist NeoCon traitors within the US Government, and the destruction of the American economy by the ZionCorp Media and FED who did 9/11 in collaboration with their Israeli Masters. Today the US has no launch capability because Zionists traitors have raped America. You are one of them.
@dreamdiction - A patriotic american? Where did you get that from? Do you really believe all who accept the moon landings were real are american? How naive! I've never even been to the USA. Being an amateur astronomer for over 30 years and having an interest in space/science related topics is why I'm here. Why is that so difficult for you to understand. If you feel more confident and more interested in discussing 9/11, then go to 9/11 related topics, that's what they're there for.
@MTMind2 And here you are on a "mythbusters" video showing no doubts that the so-called "mythbusters" crew somehow failed to burn through a car roof with a ton of termite. Please tell me if there is ANY government/media propaganda that you disbelieve? If you make excuses to evade answering the question then will have confirmed your lack of credibility as a commentator on anything.
@dreamdiction - Then go to a MBs topic on youtube about that episode and discuss it there. And stop resorting to cheap tactics please. First you try to shift this discussion away from the moon landings (because of your lack of knowledge) to 9/11 which you obviously feel more confident about. Now you're trying the old childish classics of "If you believe this, then you must believe that then" and also "If you don't answer then you're XYZ". It's old, it's childish. Get back on topic.
@MTMind2 You only have one topic and that is your imaginary intelligence which is nothing more than your naive dedication to supporting every fantasy that the media feeds to the public. You have confirmed that have no credibility as a commentator on any subject. Mythbusters is a comfortable small home for your tiny little autistic space-cadet mind.
@dreamdiction - Nice try kid. As I stated already, this topic is about the moon landing hoax claims (as examined by MythBusters). If that's too difficult for you, I suggest you move on, otherwise try making a contribution to this topic. You NOW accept that the shadow angles will vary depending on the terrain, so MBs were right all along! So which of the other moon hoax experiments were MBs wrong, and how were they wrong, since that's what you're claiming.
@dreamdiction - Yet again you prove you're out of your depth on this topic (as we all are about numerous topics). You finally admit MBs were right about the shadows, but you can't say where they were wrong about the other moon hoax claims, which shows you have nothing to offer here except empty words (hence your desperation to change the subject). However, if you think one or more of MB's debunking of those moon hoax claims was wrong, they say which one(s) and explain the error(s).
@MTMind2 I could make any kind of dirt stick together in a vacuum by using electrostatic coagulation, whereas the opposite charge on the moon causes electrostatic dust levitation.
Mythbuster homos get their dirt from here /watch?v=Zgfi7wnGZlE
@dreamdiction - As expected, you're all (childish) talk. That episode of MBs was first shown 3.5 years ago, and yet no-one has replicated their experiments to prove them wrong. Today we can purchase lunar regolith simulant online, simply google search 'orbitec lunar soil simulant', so all we need now is access to a vacuum chamber and a means to make a footprint. Until someone repeats the same experiment but achieves a different result, then MB's result debunks the footprint claim.
@MTMind2 Video proof of who really went to the moon.
/watch?v=D_f8K2j-UfE
This question must be easy for you to answer: After launch into Earth orbit, the nauts "burn" out of earth orbit and begin their three day "coast" to the moon. During their 3 day "coast", were they slowing down? If not, then what holds the moon in orbit around the earth? How is it that gravity strong enough to hold the moon in orbit, can’t pull a space craft back to earth during its’ 3 day “coast” to the moon?
Because they are going fast enough *velocity* to *escape* the Earths gravitational pull. Which is why it's called "escape velocity" Once they neared the moon, they fired the service module engine enough to lower their velocity enough to be captured into lunar orbit.
If what you say was the case every single lunar probe ever would be fake. Besides, they were photographed by people all around the world as they left Earth orbit.
@loperspest Escape velocity only gets you into earth orbit. You need to be 5/6ths of the way to the moon before the gravity of earth and the moon become equal, so they must have been slowing down for 5/6ths of their 3 day 'coast' to the moon.
They were slowing down, but it wasn't enough to pull them back before getting to the moon. Oh, and you are really, off base with your definition of escape velocity. What you are thinking of is "orbital velocity", the velocity needed to go into a particular orbit.
@loperspest The calculations in your links, at an EV of 24,000mph, the Apollo module would have been subject to full earth gravity slowing them down and would have started falling back to earth at 61% of transit to the moon.
Mythbuster homos use NASA dirt in a NASA vacuum chamber in a NASA hanger. As they say at 5:00 NASA would not let them go until they performed to NASA's specific Hollywood standards.
MB homos say "conspiracy theory" as often as Rudy Giuliani says “9/11”.
You know, even if I agreed with you, I am sick of you using "homo" as a slur. It's disgusting behaviour. I myself am not gay, but it really isn't any way for a reasonable human to talk.
I admit, I don't know much math. I don't trust your math however given other errors you have made, & also given that the USSR and British tracked Apollo around the moon. SOMETHING was there, not to mention the visual tracking already provided.
@loperspest How can you take these effeminate Mythbusters Hollywood attention whores seriously? "This is called the snoop cap", (spoken with a cute lisp), "this is not my real space suit, this is just my wear around town space suit". That's why I call them homos. They are adults who think it makes them cool if they behave like children. Everything about mythbusters is fake crappy MTV-type garbage. Their failure to melt a car roof with a ton of thermite proves they are MTV faggots.
Adam Savage is a geeky, silly guy, or at least the persona presented on Mythbusters is.
What does that have to do with, well, anything?
You keep bringing up that thermite car video. But until you replicate the experiment yourself, can you truly say what the result will be?
You can't.
You've given no motive WHY they would fake it when they've shown smaller quantiles cut through more metal. I did see a metal stream, perhaps it cut, but more metal flowed and sealed it.
@loperspest Jonathan Cole is an enthusiastic amateur who did a few backyard experiments which proved that ridged steel support joints (RSJs) can be cut with only a handful of thermite. Corporate Media clowns like National Geographic and Mythbusters produced so-called debunker themite videos which failed with huge quantities of Themite, then MB refuse to discuss 911 and they delete all 911 comments. How much more obvious could it be that MB are disinfo shills.
A small handful, perhaps. But things don't always scale up the way one expects. I already told you, I refuse to discuss 9/11 with you.
Stick to the relevant topic, actual evidence of an Apollo hoax ,not supposition and opinions on those who support it.
Your only actual attempt at evidence, shadows, went down in flame to real world images. Is that all you got? I've asked you repeatedly and so far the answer seems yes.
@loperspest All your attempts to make excuses for the shadows pointing in different directions rely on the shadows falling on surfaces which slope at radically different angles. At 3 min 23 sec on the video link below, we see shadows at radically different angles on a FLAT moon surface. The shadows all point back to the artificial light source which is just off stage on the fake Apollo film set.
@dreamdiction - I'm surprised you think that's a mystery. More unmanned crafts/probes have been sent into orbit around the moon than any other body in the solar system. The LRO probe has been in orbit around the moon for 2.5 years and it's still there today! We've also sent probes into orbit around Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and landed on some of them. So what makes you think the laws of physics suddenly changes just because you put a few men inside? The same laws apply.
@loperspest Yes it true, the Apollo missions contributed much to science. The experience of filming the Moon landings also made it possible for the same team to film Scud missiles flying in Iraq in 1991.
And, yet again, you refuse to provide any direct evidence.
DO you have anything besides "Well, I think they lied here, so they MUST have been lying on Apollo."
That's not evidence, that's certainly not proof, that's an opinion.
A lot of things just could not have been faked back then with the technology of the time.Even now, with CGI and other tricks, it would still be very difficult.
@loperspest Why do the guys in the video link below look so guilty? The only naut who sounds honest and relaxed is the naut who was only ever supposed to stay in the command module, so he never needed to lie like the other two. Please read everyone’s comments below the video and then add your own comments to persuade everyone that mythbuster homos know the truth.
"Why do the guys in the video link below look so guilty?"
They look to me like men who are tired and exhausted, tired from debriefing and isolation (having been in quarantine for the past couple weeks), men who were not chosen for their public relations skills but for their piloting ability.
But that's my opinion. Neither are evidence.
Besides, the CSM pilot would have to lie just as much unless you are claiming they made it into lunar orbit but never landed.
Insight into conspiracy theorists' minds: "Because I'm a complete failure of a human, and don't understand anything and fake everything in my life, I believe that no other humans could achieve anything like landing on the moon. Q.E.D. It's so clearly logical I defy anyone else to challenge me. I'm brilliant." ;-)
@the247s Ad Onor del Vero l'uomo non è ancora andato sulla Luna !
Troverete le prove schiaccianti digitando su GOOGLE " WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON "
Se invece preferite continuare a credere che dodici astronauti americani sono stati sulla Luna, fate pure così ! - CONTENTI VOI CONTENTI TUTTI !! ( ...soprattutto quelli che vi hanno sonoramente turlupinati ! - AH ! AH ! AH ! AH ! )
Ciao a tutti dall'Italia e, se potete, cercate almeno di starmi bene !
@DeadJesus100 who the fuck are you? a piece of shit nothing more, people can believe what they want, and no one gives a fucking shit about how u think its fake, go die in a dark corner
1. They didn't play around with the speeds with slow motion. You can have different percentage on slow motion and they only tested one. 2. The "space suite" wasn't legit and it was only jerking around because it's a cheap ass one. 3. Sand from nasa? Well, wasn't Nasa the people that tried to fake it? I'm sorry... but acting in this show is terrible 2:37 Oh guys i'm going to stand right here and you guys right there and when he says action we go...? They don't even walk toward each oth
@Filayjay - But at least they tried, unlike moon hoax films. This episode is over 3 years old, so where are the moon hoax film makers carrying out the same experiments to prove themselves right and MythBusters wrong? In fact, 5 years before that MBs episode, there was a documentary that carried out similar experiments debunking moon hoax claims;
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
That was 8-9 years ago, and yet still no moon hoax film maker has challenged those results with experiments of their own.
GENTLEMEN, PLEASE! The sand given by NASA is said to replicate the bloody density of moon dust. Tell me, do you know a certain sand compound that could also be used for the test?
@Tarik360 - You can buy it on the internet. Google search 'orbital lunar and mars soil simulant' and click on the first link found (from the company Orbitec). :-)
No seriously, doesn't anyone think that NASA hired MB just to bust the hoax so people will still believe that they actually went to the moon? It just doesn't make sense at all. With NASA giving them the sand or even letting them in in the first place. We all know that NASA has the technology to set it up. I'm not a conspiracy nerd or anythn, all seems odd that's all.
@freedomjustice1995 these are TV hosts funded by the government. They failed to show the fake NASA clips with strings lifting up the Apollo astronauts by their feet while their hands are still touching the ground. There are no multiple light sources on the moon casting 3 shadows. NASA supplied sand. No blast crater when the Eagle took off, & the camera followed it perfectly? Shadows are 100% black in space, you CANNOT see Neil in the dark while he stepped out of the Eagle.
@TorontoBoi - To add to the reply from freedomjustice1995, I had already given you a link to another film (that has nothing to do with NASA) that proved the shadows would not be black. Didn't you watch it (as you claimed you would)? And I also told you how that astronaut got up, you claimed they weighed 800lb, when in fact they weighed about 360lb on earth and hence only 60lb on the moon. But here you are a week later saying exactly the same as before. You seem to be in denial ;-)
@TorontoBoi "funded" means you just invented ANOTHER flying guess nerd conspiracy. Using nerd conspiracy #2 as your "proof" of nerd conspiracy #1 only proves how desperately stupid your facts are for BOTH. Just making up your story as you go.
The only people who see "strings" are moronic hoax newbs. Movie-makers or theater workers or any else who actually WORKS in the field never do.
Shouldnt be a blast crater. Total newb guess by some retard without one days physics education
@newcomer9747 - Then watch this documentary instead;
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
NASA were not involved at all, and they setup there own 'moon landing site' in a desert area at night. They test some of the same hoax claims as MBs and some that MBs didn't look it in that episode.
What I find interesting is that it's 3-4 years since that MBs episode, and 8-9 years since that documentary, and yet to this day, no moon hoax film maker has carried out the same experiments to prove them wrong :)
this Mythbuster episode was ALMOST worse than their pathetic 9/11 demolition "debunking" attempt where they improperly placed steel beams in a loose pile of thermite explosives and couldn't even get it to cut the steel, since they weren't even applying it on 45 degree angles with the proper demolition-used adhesive. Then the boldly conclude: "Termite used to bring down the WTC towers....DEBUNKED!" These people think you guys are soo stupid and gullible.
@TorontoBoi The sad thing is.. they are using the same techniques as some of the worser conspiracy theorists, giving false information and changing the "myth" in a way to fit the bill of being busted.
They use sand that NASA gives them, aswell as using a weird angle to film it, strange that you don't see the his hands and they focuses on the boot, instead of a wide angle shoot and than zooming in and the claim that less gravity means a better footprint..where did that come from.
@Nikagor then you'd like their showing "Debunking 9/11" show where they placed a steel beam in a loose pile of thermite powder (without even consulting a multitude of demo experts out there who use a proper explosive adhesive in 45 degree angles to steel beams), then they even failed to light it properly. They couldn't even heat up the steel beam, then had the nerve to say, "Termite used to bring down the towers? BUSTED!" WTF??? These are the worst propaganda clowns i've ever seen.
No wait... the Nasa faked the moon landing footage almost perffectly with all their up-to-date sicentist, who knew the star effect and such. But because the Russian kept track on the U.S Satellites and such, the NASA went as far in the hoax to actually send three men to the moon back and forth, just to trick the Russians that they landed on the moo... wait, eh... yeah thats right...
NASA used wires AND slowed down the film, but of course MB fails again to show a true apples-to-apples comparison. You can clearly see wire reflections on the friggin "moon" (studio), and at one point they lift a fallen astronaut before his legs actually try to get him. It looks fake as shit. Plus shadows in space are 100% PITCH BLACK, it's IMPOSSIBLE to see the USA flag / badge in the Eagles black shadow, plus multiple shadows, come on, wake up sheep.
@TorontoBoi - That's a favourite hoax claim, and yet no moon hoax film has ever recreated 1/6th gravity to the standard seen in Apollo footage using wires and slo-mo. Surely THAT would be the best way to prove it can be done on earth, so why has NO moon hoax film done this to SHOW us? Why has no sci-fi film managed to recreate 1/6th gravity to that standard using wires and slo-mo? As for your other claims, ALL are debunked by MBs AND the following documentary;
@MTMind2 please watch /watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE at the 2:08 time frame and wake up to this TV fraud called the Apollo moon missions. MB does a terrible job on this. OMG, a boot made an impression in the sand! Shocker! LOL. Multiple light sources, no stars, no blaster crater as the Eagle takes off and a the camera actually MOVES to follow it? Come on. And yes, moon shadows are completely BLACK, no indirect lighting can luminate the astronaut my friend.
@TorontoBoi - Seen that years ago, where the left hand of the astronaut getting up is holding onto the right hand of the astronaut standing up. All you are doing is regurgetating the same nonsense claims as other moon hoax believers. Take your lighing claim, I gave you the following documentary;
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
See 23:23 - 25:11 and they show that the astronaut would NOT be black. They also show you something you didn't seem to know, i.e. that light can travel through material.
@MTMind2 actually what i'm doing is providing 100% visual evidence that the lower half (the legs) of a 800lb astronaut cannot lift up before the upper torso, where the other astronaut is holding him, it's sort of...what's the word? Physically impossible and clearly shows shiny wires used, the exact same ones NASA shows during the moon walk training exercise in their studio on earth. Can you explain this while i watch your video? Much thanks.
@TorontoBoi - They do not weigh 800 Ib on the moon, where did you get that from? The Apollo suits weighed about 180 Ib, add to that the weight of the astronaut and it's about twice that, i.e. 360 lb. However, the moon has 1/6th the gravity of earth, so 360 lb on earth would be only 60 lb on the moon. So you really think lifting 60 lb with your legs (and a helping hand) is impossible? And let's finish the lighting claims please, did you watch the clip I suggested? Why wasn't he black?
@TorontoBoi What do you mean all shadows are pitch black? There are other stars you know, sure, far away, but a lot(!) of them... Also, planet's usually reflect some sunlight. (If not planets, then other moons)
@Galentw i'll try to find the video, since there are many REAL videos showing this moon hoax. Here's one of them...but doesn't address the shadow issues, just the blatantly FAKE wires lifting the astronauts before he even lifts himself at 2:08 below....
@yambo000 well does that stuff look wet to u? id say to my eyes that looked like rather dry sand, but maybe its some nasas supersand which works like wet sand when its dry!!! omg that would be such a cool material to use...see how stupid i sound like? well thats just how stupid u sound like.
@Jop3lius It was 1957 when Russians first sent satellite in orbit, and it was 1961 when Russians, not Americans sent first man in the orbit.
It might have seemed at the time that difference between going to space as close to Earth as possible and going to Moon is not a big thing, but come on, think for yourself.
It would take Americans just 8 years after someone else sent first man to space to send whole crew to Moon and back without mistakes.
@alhocarmine - Why should that make any difference? The fact that any sand exists that produces those results means the hoax claim that it's impoosible for the footprints to be so sharp and clear without water is debunked. It's now up to moon hoax film makers to do experiments to prove MBs wrong (that was over 3 yrs ago, strange how no-one has tried as yet).
Here's another film debunking some of the moon hoax claims (including some that MBs didn't look at :-)).
@alhocarmine - Well done for missing the point. MBs were proving that clear footprints can be made in a vacuum WITHOUT the need for water. That's all they needed to do to bust the claim that it is impossible without water. And enough of the strawman arguments please, that's a cheap tactic. I don't believe we landed on the moon because the US government said so, I believe the world's scientists of MANY fields, including from countries considered enemies of the USA, who confirmed it.
If you look at Soviet Lunokhod images, you'll see the same thing in the tracks.
w w w*planetology.ru/panoramas/lunokhod1*php?page=33&language=english
Here's a question. If NASA was trying to fake the moon, a moon known to be dry and barren even before the Apollo landings, and these crisp prints were a sign of a hoax, why would NASA take the trouble to make them this way?
MYTHBUSTER MORONS
PROPAGANDA JEW QUEERS
APOLLO
F
A
K
E
1968-1972
DeadJesus100 9 hours ago in playlist Mythbuster's Proofing Moonlanding Isn't A Hoax
fake and gay
JorgeOmarGE 10 hours ago
@JorgeOmarGE
Fake and gay and really ugly
mythbuster morons
DeadJesus100 9 hours ago in playlist Mythbuster's Proofing Moonlanding Isn't A Hoax
I love this episode, but really, I don't see why they bothered tackling a conspiracy. If there really WERE a conspiracy, do you think there'd be any chance they could release this episode on public television? And there are just too many opportunities for hoaxers to go "Nasa rigged their experiments with the stuff they gave them!"
Nevertheless, as I said, this episode is awesome.
RaustBD 10 hours ago
WhaT about the picture about the leaving the moon when the spaceship is leaving and somebody were there taking a picture about it
jareppoo 4 days ago
@jareppoo - It's called remote control (such technology did exist in those days ;-)).
For a full explanation, watch the following video from 11:43 onwards;
/watch?v=H_Xl8FxEpuc
I hope that helps to explain how that shot was achieved :)
MTMind2 4 days ago
I just wish they would show clear high res images of the landing sites today so we can see the equipment left behind.
rjpare 5 days ago
@rjpare - Have you seen the LRO photos of the landing sites? If not, you can see them here :)
/watch?v=PTeM4ZqEKR4
The moon is back on the agenda, with interest from many nations resulting in more probes and even rovers from the USA, China, Japan, India and Europe in the near future, hence even clearer photos of the landing sites. China is likely to be the second nation to land on the moon over the next few decades, helping to push the USA to return too (but more than Apollo).
MTMind2 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MYTHBUSTER PROPAGANDA JEW PIGS
APOLLO ZERO
ZERO MOON LANDINGS
1969-1972
DeadJesus100 1 week ago
Although love the series, I find it quite "dangerous" to use the material of NASA to see if conspiracy against them are true.
They should have at least made us see how they verified that they were not fooled.
Contevent 1 week ago
@Contevent - Well, that episode is over 3.5 years old now, more than enough time for others to carry out the same experiments to prove them wrong. In fact, in 2003, a documentary did similar experiments as MythBusters, where they had nothing to do with NASA and yet they arrived at the same conclusions as MythBusters. Again, nearly a decade later, no-one has shown their experiments to be wrong, which suggests they've successfully debunked those claims :)
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
MTMind2 1 week ago
@Contevent NASA had no problem with it because they had nothing to hide, they knew that some conspiracy theorist would turn around to see the obvious truth from people such as the mythbusters. its a win for common sense and NASA
stewiee7999 1 week ago
@stewiee7999 That was not my point. I was saying that it was intriguing that the mythbusters had used tools from the NASA to test a hoax that could potentially disgarced NASA. Of course, for the tests, they needed those tools, so I was wondering why they didn't show how they tested their tools first, to be sur NASA wasn't trying to trick the result.
In the end, I think this is because they lacked time.
Contevent 1 week ago
See youtube vid. Dark mission 1. You will see real footage of astroNOTs faking halfway to the moon. Sally Ride said it would take decades to CREATE tech to go to moon. Current x-ray photos of the moon? Killer x-rays. How many air tanks were in the plss (backpack)? Temps soar to 200° on the moon. What kind of a/c unit would fit in the plss? Ever see an astroNOT sweat?
Ever sit in a car, 90°, no a/c?
Don't you want to know who really made the one way trip?
phase57 1 week ago
@phase57 - Ah yes, Dark Mission 1, yet another moan hoax film where they were caught deliberately lying :) Provide the exact quote from Sally Ride please. And killer X-rays? The X-ray levels in low earth orbit is the SAME as the X-ray levels on the moon! The temperature in low earth orbit ranges from -250F to 250F, and yet astronauts have been out on spacewalks under those conditions for up to 9 hours (including from the ISS and Shuttle) since 1965!! So why would it be a problem on the moon? :-|
MTMind2 1 week ago
@phase57 - And regarding Dark Mission's ridiculous earth colour transparency claim (sorry, but you have to be rather naive to believe that one), the following video clearly debunks their claim, and similar claims;
/watch?v=2OnZwqc-96Y
So in fact, they were halfway to the moon, as clearly shown by the footage documentary's like Dark Mission 1 conveniently leaves out, the same footage the moon hoax documentary "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" deliberately lies about. :)
MTMind2 1 week ago
@dreamdiction The moon hoax is more than busted, get over it! And learn some logic, think for yourself instead of believing a bunch of bored kids making up ridiculous lies to push conspiracy.
helianimal 1 week ago
@ettoremazza7 That site has more false data, mistakes, lies & all around lack of logic than a squid teaching at a university. The hoax is busted, get over it!
helianimal 1 week ago
What if they did it the way the Mythbusters did?
rojasern 1 week ago
@DeadJesus100 if it's really fake try it
pldreys 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APOLLO BULLSHIT
F
A
K
E
DeadJesus100 2 weeks ago
busted bitches
psycosavage05 2 weeks ago
DO NOT FEED DeadJesus100 the troll. Don't. Don't even go to his/her channel. Just completely and absolutely ignore him/her.
Add "/reportabuse" to the end of URL like this: "youtube,c0m/reportabuse" to report his/her comments and get his/her account suspended for e.g. spamming among other things.
TheFinlandnator 2 weeks ago 13
Comment removed
TheFinlandnator 2 weeks ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
If you're still not convinced, try typing these words on GOOGLE! (... Go and read up on the first site on the list that gives you GOOGLE!) ...... THE MOON LANDING HOAX ....
HOW TO WIN IN A COURT OF LAW ... WITHOUT A LAWYER!
LEARN HOW TO KEEP YOUR PRIVACY
ettoremazza7 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MYTHBUSTER PROPAGANDA JEW PIGS
Sick faggots defending the FAKE MOON LANDINGS
from their studio basement at home
Sickos
DeadJesus100 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you're still not convinced, try typing these words on GOOGLE! (... Go and read up on the first site on the list that gives you GOOGLE!) ...... THE MOON LANDING HOAX ....
HOW TO WIN IN A COURT OF LAW ... WITHOUT A LAWYER!
LEARN HOW TO KEEP YOUR PRIVACY
ettoremazza7 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try typing these words on GOOGLE: ( APOLLO Research
Accepted the view, held by the Majority, named Is that NASA sent astronauts to the Moon and returned to Earth Them Safely - as reported by the space agency, as seen on TV and in the Apollo photos. )
ettoremazza7 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try typing these words on GOOGLE: ( APOLLO Research
Accepted the view, held by the Majority, named Is that NASA sent astronauts to the Moon and returned to Earth Them Safely - as reported by the space agency, as seen on TV and in the Apollo photos. )
ettoremazza7 2 weeks ago
@MTmind2 actually...Mars has the most probes...however the moon has a higher probe success rate than Mars
mojoeyFTW 2 weeks ago
@mojoeyFTW - Not quite my friend, I was specifying the number of probes sent rather than the success rate, but even then I believe the moon comes out on top for both measures. Most people are unaware of large number of probes sent to the moon by the USA and USSR alone, and then by other nations, hence google search "Exploration of the Moon" and click on the first link found (Wiki I know, but good info just the same :-)). Google search "Exploration of Mars" for similar Wiki info.
MTMind2 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MYTHBUSTER PROPAGANDA JEW PIGS
Replicating conditions on the moon from their basement at home
APOLLO DISNEY
DeadJesus100 2 weeks ago
It takes a Grade A Moron to think the landings were a hoax.
JBG762 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JBG762 It takes a mental retard like you to believe in the Disney moonlandings
DeadJesus100 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MYTHBUSTER PROPAGANDA JEW PIGS
APOLLO HOAX DISNEY MISSIONS
1968-1972
DeadJesus100 3 weeks ago
Views are fewer because most people were convinced by Part1 and Part2 that cospiracy theorists are dead wrong,and didnt bother watching any more
21centimetres 3 weeks ago
@21centimetres haha so true
CryptWarrior69 3 weeks ago
I was asking myself "don't those conspiracy theory retards ever go outside and look around?" wait, no. they don't
touge242 3 weeks ago
Let me get this straight.
1. They use man made soil created by NASA. < ironic
2. They perform a test in a hanger that also belogns to NASA.
How does this disprove anything? From what I can see it only proves that it can be faked.
nice job mythbusters
neoverse 4 weeks ago
@neoverse - Here's a documentary made 5-6 years before that episode of MythBusters that debunked many of the same claims MBs debunked, plus some MBs didn't look at;
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
No NASA involvement there and yet they arrive at the same conclusions, hence debunking a number of moon hoax claims. What I find interesting is that after all these years, none of the moon hoax film makers (or anyone else) has carried out those same experiments to prove them wrong.
MTMind2 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MTMind2 Do you have anything you want to say in answer to the questions I have asked you and loperspest on this thread ?
dreamdiction 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
dreamdiction 4 weeks ago
this is just like the 911 mythbusters, they make sure they get the results they want using the materials they want
jackvincent90 4 weeks ago
This is the same mythbusters who failed to melt through a car roof with a ton of themite. Mythbusters are shills.
dreamdiction 4 weeks ago
@dreamdiction - Then state which of their experiments are wrong, and how they are wrong please. That episode was first aired 3.5 years ago, so why haven't any moon hoax believers (film makers in particular) carried out the same experiments to prove MBs wrong. Are you saying the astronauts would be black inside the LEM's shadow? That the shadows *must* all be parallel? That the flag wouldn't move that way in a vacuum? etc. If so, where's the demonstrations from others as proof?
MTMind2 4 weeks ago
@MTMind2 The short skinny Hijackers (9 still alive) somehow kicked-in the reinforced Anti-Hijack Cockpit door so an incompetent Cessna pilot could fly a fast descending tight corkscrew turn without any course adjustments, levelling out precisely at ground level without touching the lawn, hit the only re-enforced Pentagon section holding the audit records of the missing $2 Trillion, leaving no debris other than a few clean pieces on the lawn for an FBI photo opportunity.USA lies about everything.
dreamdiction 4 weeks ago
@dreamdiction - Don't resort to strawman arguments please, this is not about 9/11 this is about the moon landings. You claimed MBs are shills, and so I'm asking you to prove it by showing that the experiments they carried out are wrong. Whether you believe the moon landings were real or not is irrelevent, MBs successfully debunked those particular hoax claims, therefore if you stand by your claim, provide evidence of the same experiements being done by others that contradicts MBs.
MTMind2 4 weeks ago
@MTMind2 The Pentagon was hit by a Boeing which blasted through 3 large office blocks all the way to C Ring, but without the wings, engines or tail leaving any scratch on the outer Pentagon wall because the fuel filled wings folded up and went through the same 16ft diameter hole as the fuselage.
Americans lie about everything.
All light from the sun is Collimated Light with parallel rays therefore all shadows on the earth and moon must be parallel.
Mythbusters are Government Shills
dreamdiction 4 weeks ago
@dreamdiction
"Therefore all shadows on the earth and moon must be parallel."
To quote 4chan, "Challenge accepted."
w w w*panoramio*com/photo/35559506
w w w*panoramio*com/photo/3743809
/watch?v=u4Ay3tUi68E
w w w3*telus*net/summa/moonshot/shadows*htm
w w w3*telus.net/summa/moonshot/shadows2*htm
loperspest 4 weeks ago
@loperspest @MTMind2 OK, here's the deal, I will agree that shadow angles are NOT evidence the Apollo moon landings were faked, on condition that you agree that the Pentagon was NOT hit by a Boeing 757, American Airlines Flight 77, on 9/11. (see my previous 3 comments below)
dreamdiction 4 weeks ago
@dreamdiction
I don't know enough about 9/11 to really give an informed answer to that. However, if you look at the examples I gave, (remove the spaces and replace the asterisks with periods) instead of insisting something about an unrelated conspiracy theory you'll find plenty of examples of non-parallel shadows. Which demonstrates quite equivocally that shadow angles are not evidence of a multiple light sources and hence a hoax.
loperspest 4 weeks ago
@loperspest I have already looked at the photo links you provided. You can read my previous 3 comments below and watch my video link of the Pentagon Firefighters on 911, then tell me if you believe the 9/11 Pentagon attack was real or faked.
dreamdiction 4 weeks ago
@dreamdiction
I showed that shadow angles can, contrary to your claim, be non-parallel even with only sunlight. Truth is not negotiable. It is or it isn't.
And the links I provided show that, as far as claims that non-parallel shadows in Apollo material is evidence of lighting that could only happen in a studio, you are wrong.
Get over it. I've been wrong before, you've been wrong before, it happens.
I don't care enough about 9/11 to care who did it and how.
loperspest 4 weeks ago
@loperspest I have already said I am prepared to agree that shadow angles are NOT evidence that the Apollo moon landings were faked. You care deeply about the USA landing on the moon, but you say you don't care about the possibly that the US Government murdered 3,000 of their own people on 9/11 so as to falsely justify murdering half a million Muslims to steal their Oil. I suppose you also believe that WTC 7 suffered from a broken heart and committed suicide in sympathy with WTC buildings 1&2 ?
dreamdiction 4 weeks ago
@dreamdiction
It doesn't matter what you are prepared to agree with, non-parallel shadows in themselves not being evidence is a demonstrable fact, one that I demonstrated. One doesn't prepare to agree that gravity is what makes you fall, it just is.
I don't care enough about 9/11 to get sucked into a discussion on an alternate topic that I have not researched enough to form an informed opinion on. Stay on topic.
loperspest 4 weeks ago
@loperspest So you can post links to panaramio pictures of angled tree shadows on snow covered hillsides, but in the ten years since 9/11 you never even felt sufficiently curious to look into the hundreds of 9/11 inside job websites, books and videos?
Perhaps you believe the absurd conspiracy theory that 9/11 was carried out by men in a cave? Perhaps you don't know that the Lavon Affair PROVES Israelis are lying criminal scumbags who kill their friends so they can falsely blame their enemies.
dreamdiction 4 weeks ago
@dreamdiction Space travel was a childhood interest of mine. I read every book I could on the topic. When I first heard about the conspiracy theory about the coolest manned mission ever, going to the moon, it reignited that childhood interest, forcing me to look deep and research everywhere I could on the topic, connecting with other space exploration aficionados on various forums.
I find that much more interesting than discussing who killed thousands of people and how.
loperspest 4 weeks ago
@loperspest You have been outted as one of the 1000s of fulltime youtube usernames who work hard to distract attention from all the US government lies, Apollo, JFK, Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11, etc. Americans lie about absolutely everything and American government shills like Mythbuster faggots and thousands of others, all work hard to stop everyone realising that Americans and Israelis lie about everything all the time. A ton of thermite can’t burn through a car? - yeah right.
/watch?v=Ufdw21ltc-8
dreamdiction 4 weeks ago
@dreamdiction
I've been "outed" eh?
That's bloody hilarious.
This has nothing to do with Apollo, but of you disagree with the results of the experiment, do it yourself. I would be fascinated to see the effect of a ton of thermite on a car again.
loperspest 4 weeks ago
@loperspest Here’s some reality to jolt you out of your immature autistic space cadet fantasies. Americans and Israelis lie about everything all the time to deflect attention from the fact that Americans and Israelis are colonial imperialists who murder and steal for profit.
/watch?v=y4P2O8UjQeU
dreamdiction 4 weeks ago
@dreamdiction
How is this evidence for or against Apollo?
The US government does evil things, so?
The former USSR government was as murderous, repressive bunch of bastards as you ever wouldn't want to meet.
Yet, despite my feelings on them, I still acknowledge and even praise their achievements in space.
Yes, it's bad, but it isn't evidence for the Apollo conspiracy theory in particular.
You've already demonstrated you don't know shadows, what other evidence can you present?
loperspest 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dreamdiction
How is this evidence for or against Apollo?
The US government does evil things, so?
The former USSR government was as murderous, repressive bunch of bastards as you ever wouldn't want to meet.
Yet, despite my feelings on them, I still acknowledge and even praise their achievements in space.
Yes, it's bad, but it isn't evidence for the Apollo conspiracy theory in particular.
You've already demonstrated you don't know shadows, what other evidence can you present?
loperspest 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dreamdiction
How is this evidence for or against Apollo?
The US government does evil things, so?
The former USSR government was as murderous, repressive bunch of bastards as you ever wouldn't want to meet.
Yet, despite my feelings on them, I still acknowledge and even praise their achievements in space.
Yes, it's bad, but it isn't evidence for the Apollo conspiracy theory in particular.
You've already demonstrated you don't know shadows, what other evidence can you present?
loperspest 4 weeks ago
@dreamdiction - Why should acceptance or rejection of the shadow angles hoax claim be conditional? You either accept it or you don't, it's not a matter for negotiation :) And again, as I mentioned before, this topic is about Apollo hoax claims, not 9/11, hence the moon landings is what I'm HERE to talk about. If I wanted to discuss 9/11, then I'd go to a 9/11 topic. Feel free to invite people to join you in a 9/11 topic, but right here, the moon landings is all I'm interested in.
MTMind2 3 weeks ago
@MTMind2 You falsely claim to be a patriotic American who defends USA Space achievements, but you totally contradict yourself by showing no interest or concern for the destruction of American democracy by Zionist NeoCon traitors within the US Government, and the destruction of the American economy by the ZionCorp Media and FED who did 9/11 in collaboration with their Israeli Masters. Today the US has no launch capability because Zionists traitors have raped America. You are one of them.
dreamdiction 3 weeks ago
@dreamdiction - A patriotic american? Where did you get that from? Do you really believe all who accept the moon landings were real are american? How naive! I've never even been to the USA. Being an amateur astronomer for over 30 years and having an interest in space/science related topics is why I'm here. Why is that so difficult for you to understand. If you feel more confident and more interested in discussing 9/11, then go to 9/11 related topics, that's what they're there for.
MTMind2 3 weeks ago
@MTMind2 And here you are on a "mythbusters" video showing no doubts that the so-called "mythbusters" crew somehow failed to burn through a car roof with a ton of termite. Please tell me if there is ANY government/media propaganda that you disbelieve? If you make excuses to evade answering the question then will have confirmed your lack of credibility as a commentator on anything.
dreamdiction 3 weeks ago
@dreamdiction - Then go to a MBs topic on youtube about that episode and discuss it there. And stop resorting to cheap tactics please. First you try to shift this discussion away from the moon landings (because of your lack of knowledge) to 9/11 which you obviously feel more confident about. Now you're trying the old childish classics of "If you believe this, then you must believe that then" and also "If you don't answer then you're XYZ". It's old, it's childish. Get back on topic.
MTMind2 3 weeks ago
@MTMind2 You only have one topic and that is your imaginary intelligence which is nothing more than your naive dedication to supporting every fantasy that the media feeds to the public. You have confirmed that have no credibility as a commentator on any subject. Mythbusters is a comfortable small home for your tiny little autistic space-cadet mind.
dreamdiction 3 weeks ago
@dreamdiction - Nice try kid. As I stated already, this topic is about the moon landing hoax claims (as examined by MythBusters). If that's too difficult for you, I suggest you move on, otherwise try making a contribution to this topic. You NOW accept that the shadow angles will vary depending on the terrain, so MBs were right all along! So which of the other moon hoax experiments were MBs wrong, and how were they wrong, since that's what you're claiming.
MTMind2 3 weeks ago
@MTMind2 Mythbusters can't melt through a car roof with a ton of thermite, so mythbusters are a hoax, and so are you.
dreamdiction 3 weeks ago
@dreamdiction - Yet again you prove you're out of your depth on this topic (as we all are about numerous topics). You finally admit MBs were right about the shadows, but you can't say where they were wrong about the other moon hoax claims, which shows you have nothing to offer here except empty words (hence your desperation to change the subject). However, if you think one or more of MB's debunking of those moon hoax claims was wrong, they say which one(s) and explain the error(s).
MTMind2 3 weeks ago
@MTMind2 I could make any kind of dirt stick together in a vacuum by using electrostatic coagulation, whereas the opposite charge on the moon causes electrostatic dust levitation.
Mythbuster homos get their dirt from here /watch?v=Zgfi7wnGZlE
dreamdiction 3 weeks ago
@dreamdiction - As expected, you're all (childish) talk. That episode of MBs was first shown 3.5 years ago, and yet no-one has replicated their experiments to prove them wrong. Today we can purchase lunar regolith simulant online, simply google search 'orbitec lunar soil simulant', so all we need now is access to a vacuum chamber and a means to make a footprint. Until someone repeats the same experiment but achieves a different result, then MB's result debunks the footprint claim.
MTMind2 3 weeks ago
@MTMind2 Video proof of who really went to the moon.
/watch?v=D_f8K2j-UfE
This question must be easy for you to answer: After launch into Earth orbit, the nauts "burn" out of earth orbit and begin their three day "coast" to the moon. During their 3 day "coast", were they slowing down? If not, then what holds the moon in orbit around the earth? How is it that gravity strong enough to hold the moon in orbit, can’t pull a space craft back to earth during its’ 3 day “coast” to the moon?
dreamdiction 3 weeks ago
@dreamdiction
Because they are going fast enough *velocity* to *escape* the Earths gravitational pull. Which is why it's called "escape velocity" Once they neared the moon, they fired the service module engine enough to lower their velocity enough to be captured into lunar orbit.
If what you say was the case every single lunar probe ever would be fake. Besides, they were photographed by people all around the world as they left Earth orbit.
astr*ua*edu/keel/space/apollo*html
loperspest 3 weeks ago
@loperspest Escape velocity only gets you into earth orbit. You need to be 5/6ths of the way to the moon before the gravity of earth and the moon become equal, so they must have been slowing down for 5/6ths of their 3 day 'coast' to the moon.
dreamdiction 3 weeks ago
@dreamdiction
They were slowing down, but it wasn't enough to pull them back before getting to the moon. Oh, and you are really, off base with your definition of escape velocity. What you are thinking of is "orbital velocity", the velocity needed to go into a particular orbit.
ceres*hsc*edu/homepages/classes/astronomy/spring99/Mathematics/sec10*html
ceres*hsc*edu/homepages/classes/astronomy/spring99/Mathematics/sec11*html
loperspest 3 weeks ago
@loperspest The calculations in your links, at an EV of 24,000mph, the Apollo module would have been subject to full earth gravity slowing them down and would have started falling back to earth at 61% of transit to the moon.
Mythbuster homos use NASA dirt in a NASA vacuum chamber in a NASA hanger. As they say at 5:00 NASA would not let them go until they performed to NASA's specific Hollywood standards.
MB homos say "conspiracy theory" as often as Rudy Giuliani says “9/11”.
dreamdiction 3 weeks ago
@dreamdiction
You know, even if I agreed with you, I am sick of you using "homo" as a slur. It's disgusting behaviour. I myself am not gay, but it really isn't any way for a reasonable human to talk.
I admit, I don't know much math. I don't trust your math however given other errors you have made, & also given that the USSR and British tracked Apollo around the moon. SOMETHING was there, not to mention the visual tracking already provided.
tinyurl*com/A11track
tinyurl*com/sovtrack
loperspest 3 weeks ago
@loperspest How can you take these effeminate Mythbusters Hollywood attention whores seriously? "This is called the snoop cap", (spoken with a cute lisp), "this is not my real space suit, this is just my wear around town space suit". That's why I call them homos. They are adults who think it makes them cool if they behave like children. Everything about mythbusters is fake crappy MTV-type garbage. Their failure to melt a car roof with a ton of thermite proves they are MTV faggots.
dreamdiction 3 weeks ago
@dreamdiction
Adam Savage is a geeky, silly guy, or at least the persona presented on Mythbusters is.
What does that have to do with, well, anything?
You keep bringing up that thermite car video. But until you replicate the experiment yourself, can you truly say what the result will be?
You can't.
You've given no motive WHY they would fake it when they've shown smaller quantiles cut through more metal. I did see a metal stream, perhaps it cut, but more metal flowed and sealed it.
loperspest 3 weeks ago
@loperspest Jonathan Cole is an enthusiastic amateur who did a few backyard experiments which proved that ridged steel support joints (RSJs) can be cut with only a handful of thermite. Corporate Media clowns like National Geographic and Mythbusters produced so-called debunker themite videos which failed with huge quantities of Themite, then MB refuse to discuss 911 and they delete all 911 comments. How much more obvious could it be that MB are disinfo shills.
/watch?v=Qamecech9m4
dreamdiction 3 weeks ago
@dreamdiction
A small handful, perhaps. But things don't always scale up the way one expects. I already told you, I refuse to discuss 9/11 with you.
Stick to the relevant topic, actual evidence of an Apollo hoax ,not supposition and opinions on those who support it.
Your only actual attempt at evidence, shadows, went down in flame to real world images. Is that all you got? I've asked you repeatedly and so far the answer seems yes.
loperspest 3 weeks ago
@loperspest All your attempts to make excuses for the shadows pointing in different directions rely on the shadows falling on surfaces which slope at radically different angles. At 3 min 23 sec on the video link below, we see shadows at radically different angles on a FLAT moon surface. The shadows all point back to the artificial light source which is just off stage on the fake Apollo film set.
/watch?v=H8ZzFemBUJQ&t=3m23s
dreamdiction 3 weeks ago
@dreamdiction
Even without changes in topography, perspective can also create shadows that appear unparallel.
Which you would know if you had looked at ALL the links I had provided.
w w w3*telus*net/summa/moonshot/shadows*htm
/watch?v=u4Ay3tUi68E
loperspest 3 weeks ago
@dreamdiction Any claim of multiple spotlights creating shadows in different directions can be shot down with one question:
How can you have multiple lights WITHOUT multiple shadows? Watch any TV show filmed on an obvious set. Every actor has 2-3 shadows clearly visible
SpreadingtheMuse 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@loperspest All you apollo trolls are retarded homos
Mythbuster morons are sick homos
DeadJesus100 2 weeks ago
@DeadJesus100
What kind of person tries to use sexual orientation as an insult?
loperspest 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@loperspest MYTHBUSTER MORONS are gay jew perverts and so are you scumboy
DeadJesus100 2 weeks ago
@DeadJesus100
What kind of person uses alleged cultural identity as an attempted insult?
loperspest 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@loperspest
What kind of poerson trolls on youtube with 20 accounts
defending the FAKE APOLLO MOON LANDINGS 14 hours a day scumbag?
DeadJesus100 2 weeks ago
@loperspest DAMMIT, LISTEN TO THE TOP COMMENTS FOO!!!
SCIFIguy64 2 weeks ago
@dreamdiction - I'm surprised you think that's a mystery. More unmanned crafts/probes have been sent into orbit around the moon than any other body in the solar system. The LRO probe has been in orbit around the moon for 2.5 years and it's still there today! We've also sent probes into orbit around Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and landed on some of them. So what makes you think the laws of physics suddenly changes just because you put a few men inside? The same laws apply.
MTMind2 3 weeks ago 23
@dreamdiction
Replicate the experiment, and then you can say if the experiment was fake or not.
See, that's what experiments are all about, testing ones ideas.
And sometimes, those ideas are wrong.
Until you have replicated that experiment, you yourself can not really say if it would have the effect you expect.
Besides, what possible motivation would Mythbusters have for faking the results of that myth? They've shown thermite cut metal before.
loperspest 3 weeks ago
@loperspest Mythbusters should stick to what they know best.
/watch?v=YfajBb_g_jQ
dreamdiction 3 weeks ago
@dreamdiction
Attempt at evading the question with attempted insults at those who are absent.
I am sure you think yourself terribly clever.
You also never answered my question when I asked you for any direct evidence of an Apollo hoax, having shown your shadow claims were incorrect.
loperspest 3 weeks ago
@loperspest Yes it true, the Apollo missions contributed much to science. The experience of filming the Moon landings also made it possible for the same team to film Scud missiles flying in Iraq in 1991.
/watch?v=qdUiZWibpnE
dreamdiction 3 weeks ago
@dreamdiction
And, yet again, you refuse to provide any direct evidence.
DO you have anything besides "Well, I think they lied here, so they MUST have been lying on Apollo."
That's not evidence, that's certainly not proof, that's an opinion.
A lot of things just could not have been faked back then with the technology of the time.Even now, with CGI and other tricks, it would still be very difficult.
loperspest 3 weeks ago
@loperspest Why do the guys in the video link below look so guilty? The only naut who sounds honest and relaxed is the naut who was only ever supposed to stay in the command module, so he never needed to lie like the other two. Please read everyone’s comments below the video and then add your own comments to persuade everyone that mythbuster homos know the truth.
/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI
More close up shots of NASA film techniques.
/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg
dreamdiction 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dreamdiction
"Why do the guys in the video link below look so guilty?"
They look to me like men who are tired and exhausted, tired from debriefing and isolation (having been in quarantine for the past couple weeks), men who were not chosen for their public relations skills but for their piloting ability.
But that's my opinion. Neither are evidence.
Besides, the CSM pilot would have to lie just as much unless you are claiming they made it into lunar orbit but never landed.
loperspest 3 weeks ago
"can we review this later? i wann get this thing off, i'm exhausted"
"ok"
*walks away*
"big baby >.>"
ThibautVDP 1 month ago
01:17
yikhuan96 1 month ago
Insight into conspiracy theorists' minds: "Because I'm a complete failure of a human, and don't understand anything and fake everything in my life, I believe that no other humans could achieve anything like landing on the moon. Q.E.D. It's so clearly logical I defy anyone else to challenge me. I'm brilliant." ;-)
the247s 1 month ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
@the247s Ad Onor del Vero l'uomo non è ancora andato sulla Luna !
Troverete le prove schiaccianti digitando su GOOGLE " WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON "
Se invece preferite continuare a credere che dodici astronauti americani sono stati sulla Luna, fate pure così ! - CONTENTI VOI CONTENTI TUTTI !! ( ...soprattutto quelli che vi hanno sonoramente turlupinati ! - AH ! AH ! AH ! AH ! )
Ciao a tutti dall'Italia e, se potete, cercate almeno di starmi bene !
Ettore
ettoremazza7 4 weeks ago
@the247s i have to agree, conspiracy people are failures in life, and thats what makes them think everything else is fake
CryptWarrior69 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CryptWarrior69 the mental retard believes in teh mickey mouse disney moonlandings
DeadJesus100 3 weeks ago
@DeadJesus100 who the fuck are you? a piece of shit nothing more, people can believe what they want, and no one gives a fucking shit about how u think its fake, go die in a dark corner
CryptWarrior69 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
DeadJesus100 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CryptWarrior69 Get fucked retard troll
DeadJesus100 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Coronal Mass Ejection is the smoking gun that exposes NASA lies.
NASA was very lucky between Dec. 1968 - Dec. 1972.
We could NOT detect life threatening CME until DEC. 1971.
Only two FAKED flights were made to the moon between Dec. 1971-72.
And after December 1972 NASA knew the gig was up.
NASA has not put a human beyond the safe zone (about 400 miles) in 40 years.
So the astroNOTs were very very very lucky, not one wanker came back complaining of headaches or any kind of radiation sickness?
islandbuoy4 1 month ago
youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI
deadrekon10 1 month ago
@deadrekon10 - And that's suppose to prove what exactly?
MTMind2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
disclose.tv/forum/excellent-new-moon-landing-hoax-documentary-t35478.html
deadrekon10 1 month ago
1. They didn't play around with the speeds with slow motion. You can have different percentage on slow motion and they only tested one. 2. The "space suite" wasn't legit and it was only jerking around because it's a cheap ass one. 3. Sand from nasa? Well, wasn't Nasa the people that tried to fake it? I'm sorry... but acting in this show is terrible 2:37 Oh guys i'm going to stand right here and you guys right there and when he says action we go...? They don't even walk toward each oth
Filayjay 1 month ago
@Filayjay - But at least they tried, unlike moon hoax films. This episode is over 3 years old, so where are the moon hoax film makers carrying out the same experiments to prove themselves right and MythBusters wrong? In fact, 5 years before that MBs episode, there was a documentary that carried out similar experiments debunking moon hoax claims;
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
That was 8-9 years ago, and yet still no moon hoax film maker has challenged those results with experiments of their own.
MTMind2 1 month ago
GENTLEMEN, PLEASE! The sand given by NASA is said to replicate the bloody density of moon dust. Tell me, do you know a certain sand compound that could also be used for the test?
Tarik360 1 month ago
@Tarik360 - You can buy it on the internet. Google search 'orbital lunar and mars soil simulant' and click on the first link found (from the company Orbitec). :-)
MTMind2 1 month ago
No seriously, doesn't anyone think that NASA hired MB just to bust the hoax so people will still believe that they actually went to the moon? It just doesn't make sense at all. With NASA giving them the sand or even letting them in in the first place. We all know that NASA has the technology to set it up. I'm not a conspiracy nerd or anythn, all seems odd that's all.
PeariezVespa 1 month ago
why are people really even arguing about this....
darklink2nd 1 month ago
"episode sponsored by NASA"
NiTr091 1 month ago
Like alhocarmine says, Using sand that NASA give to make the test? sounds LEGIT
nerevars 1 month ago
I LOVE SCIENCE!
Andy97009814 1 month ago
what about ash for the boot theory ?
ltvdl 1 month ago
@freedomjustice1995 these are TV hosts funded by the government. They failed to show the fake NASA clips with strings lifting up the Apollo astronauts by their feet while their hands are still touching the ground. There are no multiple light sources on the moon casting 3 shadows. NASA supplied sand. No blast crater when the Eagle took off, & the camera followed it perfectly? Shadows are 100% black in space, you CANNOT see Neil in the dark while he stepped out of the Eagle.
TorontoBoi 1 month ago
@TorontoBoi - To add to the reply from freedomjustice1995, I had already given you a link to another film (that has nothing to do with NASA) that proved the shadows would not be black. Didn't you watch it (as you claimed you would)? And I also told you how that astronaut got up, you claimed they weighed 800lb, when in fact they weighed about 360lb on earth and hence only 60lb on the moon. But here you are a week later saying exactly the same as before. You seem to be in denial ;-)
MTMind2 1 month ago
@TorontoBoi "funded" means you just invented ANOTHER flying guess nerd conspiracy. Using nerd conspiracy #2 as your "proof" of nerd conspiracy #1 only proves how desperately stupid your facts are for BOTH. Just making up your story as you go.
The only people who see "strings" are moronic hoax newbs. Movie-makers or theater workers or any else who actually WORKS in the field never do.
Shouldnt be a blast crater. Total newb guess by some retard without one days physics education
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
mythbuster FAILED. i hate watching this piece of crap series
homer30 1 month ago
Moon landing is fake (Confurmed)
fuck no Jimmy, Are you idiot? we will fired, busted Jimmy of course busted.
Ok Adam, I am See)
fuckyorutube 1 month ago
I just love the "america couldn't afford it" argument. They could afford it with a crapy technologie but not anymore . C'mon....
Leaving earth atmosphere is still expensive tho .
dg8383 1 month ago
too many irony and paradox in this test. mythbusting theory, BUSTED.
newcomer9747 1 month ago
@newcomer9747 - Then watch this documentary instead;
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
NASA were not involved at all, and they setup there own 'moon landing site' in a desert area at night. They test some of the same hoax claims as MBs and some that MBs didn't look it in that episode.
What I find interesting is that it's 3-4 years since that MBs episode, and 8-9 years since that documentary, and yet to this day, no moon hoax film maker has carried out the same experiments to prove them wrong :)
MTMind2 1 month ago
@MTMind2 now i believe...
newcomer9747 1 month ago
@newcomer9747 - That's great to see :)
MTMind2 1 month ago
this Mythbuster episode was ALMOST worse than their pathetic 9/11 demolition "debunking" attempt where they improperly placed steel beams in a loose pile of thermite explosives and couldn't even get it to cut the steel, since they weren't even applying it on 45 degree angles with the proper demolition-used adhesive. Then the boldly conclude: "Termite used to bring down the WTC towers....DEBUNKED!" These people think you guys are soo stupid and gullible.
TorontoBoi 1 month ago
@TorontoBoi The sad thing is.. they are using the same techniques as some of the worser conspiracy theorists, giving false information and changing the "myth" in a way to fit the bill of being busted.
They use sand that NASA gives them, aswell as using a weird angle to film it, strange that you don't see the his hands and they focuses on the boot, instead of a wide angle shoot and than zooming in and the claim that less gravity means a better footprint..where did that come from.
Nikagor 1 month ago
@Nikagor then you'd like their showing "Debunking 9/11" show where they placed a steel beam in a loose pile of thermite powder (without even consulting a multitude of demo experts out there who use a proper explosive adhesive in 45 degree angles to steel beams), then they even failed to light it properly. They couldn't even heat up the steel beam, then had the nerve to say, "Termite used to bring down the towers? BUSTED!" WTF??? These are the worst propaganda clowns i've ever seen.
TorontoBoi 1 month ago
@Nikagor oooh,, i repeated myself, sorry i forgot what i wrote :-)
TorontoBoi 1 month ago
No wait... the Nasa faked the moon landing footage almost perffectly with all their up-to-date sicentist, who knew the star effect and such. But because the Russian kept track on the U.S Satellites and such, the NASA went as far in the hoax to actually send three men to the moon back and forth, just to trick the Russians that they landed on the moo... wait, eh... yeah thats right...
Galentw 1 month ago
Now Nasa will let us out if here ... hahaha x :D
jegzag 1 month ago
MYTBUSTER MORONS
Homosexual Jew perverts spreading propaganda
about the Disney moonlandings
DeadJesus100 1 month ago
NASA used wires AND slowed down the film, but of course MB fails again to show a true apples-to-apples comparison. You can clearly see wire reflections on the friggin "moon" (studio), and at one point they lift a fallen astronaut before his legs actually try to get him. It looks fake as shit. Plus shadows in space are 100% PITCH BLACK, it's IMPOSSIBLE to see the USA flag / badge in the Eagles black shadow, plus multiple shadows, come on, wake up sheep.
TorontoBoi 1 month ago
@TorontoBoi - That's a favourite hoax claim, and yet no moon hoax film has ever recreated 1/6th gravity to the standard seen in Apollo footage using wires and slo-mo. Surely THAT would be the best way to prove it can be done on earth, so why has NO moon hoax film done this to SHOW us? Why has no sci-fi film managed to recreate 1/6th gravity to that standard using wires and slo-mo? As for your other claims, ALL are debunked by MBs AND the following documentary;
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
MTMind2 1 month ago
@MTMind2 please watch /watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE at the 2:08 time frame and wake up to this TV fraud called the Apollo moon missions. MB does a terrible job on this. OMG, a boot made an impression in the sand! Shocker! LOL. Multiple light sources, no stars, no blaster crater as the Eagle takes off and a the camera actually MOVES to follow it? Come on. And yes, moon shadows are completely BLACK, no indirect lighting can luminate the astronaut my friend.
TorontoBoi 1 month ago
@TorontoBoi - Seen that years ago, where the left hand of the astronaut getting up is holding onto the right hand of the astronaut standing up. All you are doing is regurgetating the same nonsense claims as other moon hoax believers. Take your lighing claim, I gave you the following documentary;
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
See 23:23 - 25:11 and they show that the astronaut would NOT be black. They also show you something you didn't seem to know, i.e. that light can travel through material.
MTMind2 1 month ago
@MTMind2 actually what i'm doing is providing 100% visual evidence that the lower half (the legs) of a 800lb astronaut cannot lift up before the upper torso, where the other astronaut is holding him, it's sort of...what's the word? Physically impossible and clearly shows shiny wires used, the exact same ones NASA shows during the moon walk training exercise in their studio on earth. Can you explain this while i watch your video? Much thanks.
TorontoBoi 1 month ago
@TorontoBoi - They do not weigh 800 Ib on the moon, where did you get that from? The Apollo suits weighed about 180 Ib, add to that the weight of the astronaut and it's about twice that, i.e. 360 lb. However, the moon has 1/6th the gravity of earth, so 360 lb on earth would be only 60 lb on the moon. So you really think lifting 60 lb with your legs (and a helping hand) is impossible? And let's finish the lighting claims please, did you watch the clip I suggested? Why wasn't he black?
MTMind2 1 month ago
@TorontoBoi What do you mean all shadows are pitch black? There are other stars you know, sure, far away, but a lot(!) of them... Also, planet's usually reflect some sunlight. (If not planets, then other moons)
Galentw 1 month ago
@Galentw i'll try to find the video, since there are many REAL videos showing this moon hoax. Here's one of them...but doesn't address the shadow issues, just the blatantly FAKE wires lifting the astronauts before he even lifts himself at 2:08 below....
/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
TorontoBoi 1 month ago
So they took a sand from NASA to show how it can make a footprint. Conflict of interest maybe?
yambo000 1 month ago 12
@yambo000 well does that stuff look wet to u? id say to my eyes that looked like rather dry sand, but maybe its some nasas supersand which works like wet sand when its dry!!! omg that would be such a cool material to use...see how stupid i sound like? well thats just how stupid u sound like.
Jop3lius 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jop3lius It was 1957 when Russians first sent satellite in orbit, and it was 1961 when Russians, not Americans sent first man in the orbit.
It might have seemed at the time that difference between going to space as close to Earth as possible and going to Moon is not a big thing, but come on, think for yourself.
It would take Americans just 8 years after someone else sent first man to space to send whole crew to Moon and back without mistakes.
yambo000 1 week ago
using sand given by NASA to make a test?!!! ridiculous...
alhocarmine 1 month ago 18
@alhocarmine - Why should that make any difference? The fact that any sand exists that produces those results means the hoax claim that it's impoosible for the footprints to be so sharp and clear without water is debunked. It's now up to moon hoax film makers to do experiments to prove MBs wrong (that was over 3 yrs ago, strange how no-one has tried as yet).
Here's another film debunking some of the moon hoax claims (including some that MBs didn't look at :-)).
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
MTMind2 1 month ago
@MTMind2 "Why should that make any difference?" you're joking right?
besides sand needs moist to make a footprint...you can't make a footprint on dry sand can you?
you must be one of those that belive that your gonverment never lied to you before...
- 9/11
- gulf of tonkin
- iraq mass destruction weapons
should i continue? you live in a fairy tale, we all do
alhocarmine 1 month ago
@alhocarmine - Well done for missing the point. MBs were proving that clear footprints can be made in a vacuum WITHOUT the need for water. That's all they needed to do to bust the claim that it is impossible without water. And enough of the strawman arguments please, that's a cheap tactic. I don't believe we landed on the moon because the US government said so, I believe the world's scientists of MANY fields, including from countries considered enemies of the USA, who confirmed it.
MTMind2 1 month ago
@alhocarmine
Moon dust is not sand, even dry sand.
If you look at Soviet Lunokhod images, you'll see the same thing in the tracks.
w w w*planetology.ru/panoramas/lunokhod1*php?page=33&language=english
Here's a question. If NASA was trying to fake the moon, a moon known to be dry and barren even before the Apollo landings, and these crisp prints were a sign of a hoax, why would NASA take the trouble to make them this way?
loperspest 1 month ago
@alhocarmine hahaha good point.
goodvibesallround 1 month ago
@alhocarmine its not sand for starters......and would u rather them use something with completely wrong properties to try and recreate the footprint?
biggunsnstuff 1 month ago
@alhocarmine and plus Mytgbusters us American program.. they probly got loaeded of money to covinced the rest of the wolrd is just a myth......
glarbjerg1 1 month ago