te tech was shit back then WHY THE FUCK is the moon videos guarded hell and high water???? Its more important than guarding 911 or ANY of conspiracy facts???? why ? why ? why ? why ?
The last 3 lunar landings carried a lunar rover to the moon to extend the range of exploration of the astronauts. The rovers carried a remotely controlled TV camera which was used to record the lunar liftoff of Apollos 15, 16 and 17.
@milliondollaabo333 No visible flames. Most rocket fuels don't show any visible flames in vacuum. That can even be seen on the videos where cameras onboard rockets film the separation of stages.
it zoomed out immmediately on blast, not 1.2 seconds (for the signal to be sent to earth) plus response time by the operator (say 1 sec) plus 1.2 sec to send command back....equals at least 3 seconds........and that would only be IF they had a remote camera.......bunkum
You are stating this video is fake because they got the timing perfect which is not possible since there is a 1.2 second lag to the moon. By this statement you are suggesting that NASA scientists don't know how to do calculate the speed of radio / light.
@itsreddersinhell It was remotely controlled from mission command back on Earth. Not so hard. Radio travels at the speed of light, and the lag time is 1.2 seconds each way.
@XxToxicSpikesxX -- Nope. No problem for the camera guy. He was sitting in a comforable chair in Houston, pushing buttons to aim the camera, of course tracking the count-down so he could hit the "pan up" button about 2 seconds before it got to zero.
Look it up.
Radio remote control was invented almost 70 years eariler by Nicola Tesla.
"The only comments that have been left on this page were not associated with musicbrev."
Which is just more proof that you're REALLY bad at lying. Because your comment immediately previous to your first comment to me was directly to 'musicbrev'.
It's still there. As of this instant, it is on page 2.
Which means it was probably on page 1 when you replyed to me.
You ought to go and delete it now so you have half a chance of looking like you're not lying.
@Dantesdoom -- YouTube my life? Because of a couple posts 6 hours apart after I check my e-mail?
No.
I just enjoy harassing hoax-theory cult members.
Especially the kind who think up nonsense like "gravity can affect radio waves."
Yes. That IS what you said. I don't really care if you deny it or not. There doesn't need to be any "proof" posted because it doesn't matter to anyone else. I saw it. So I can harass you about it.
It's just another example of hoax-theory cult member thinking.
@Dantesdoom -- Here's one reason I answer some of these posts ... (not that you're gonna answer this question because nobody ever does): I'm really curious why hoax-theory believers just make up shit.
Like "gravity affects radio waves." Or not even that one. How about "there should have been a blast crater." Are you into that one, too? Or maybe "the radiation would have killed them." That one's funny if you dig into it.
Since you're one who did it: Why do people make up shit like that??
Gavitational lensing is a phenomenon that can be detected around HUGE masses. It slightly bends the line of the EM wave. It is not an issue with a signal from the moon to the earth.
Again, I recommend: Read a book.
And not just to pick up some random terms to use randomly.
So yes, if you're talking about gravitational lensing being an issue with signal clarity from the moon, you DO make up shit.
But at least you're starting to get a clue about tolling being hard when you're dumb.
@Dantesdoom -- The thing is this: A couple years ago, after having basically zero interest in it for a number of decades, at the 40th anniversary of Apollo, after being reminded of it on the news or something, I browsed a couple YouTube channels to look at some old Apollo videos.
I saw a couple videos by people claiming it was a "hoax."
I was intrigued. I made a bit of a hobby out of looking into each of the "hoax theories."
NONE of them work logically. Every one is absolute nonsense.
Now, whether Apollo went to the moon or not is not a particularly important thing.
I mean, if you want to criticize the U.S. government there are a LOT of much more relevant and horrendously evil things that it has done and continues to do. And all of NASA is a pretty small corner of the U.S. govt's budget.
But I keep wondering why people who claim to be "truth seekers" swallow such absolute bullshit as all of the "hoax theories" without even analyzing or questioning them.
OK. Well, you were good for a couple laughs anyway, which is all I really expected when I started.
For instance ... you say such delusional stuff as "you waste your life" when the only thing I've done recently is spend about 5 minutes a couple times over the past 3 days or so.
If you actually would study some physics (which is the real fun part) you might be able to get over some of your delusions and actually understand how Apollo functioned.
@Dantesdoom i would just like to take this opportunity to call you a total dick. something we can all agree is an established fact you have proven beyond a moonshadow of a doubt. also, im nonviolent, but anyone who types or says homeslice ought to decked in the face. oh shit i typed it too.
@IAmTheOh Fair enough. I just started posting on this video to get a rise out of some people. I will also admit homeslice is a sacrilegious word. I shouldn't have used it.
@Dantesdoom Oh im just givin you chit to see whos really whiny and whos actually cool. its not about any debat just who knows how to type without being an *hole. im learning, myself. dont mind me. kung fu test of the overmind. i just do my job hey ! are oyu reading faster thani type? oh your the other guy ok dudes be cool!!!!
@IAmTheOh actually i went to space camp and everything was plausable and awesome to believe when i was 12. that was before Kurt Kobain. Not that that was a conspiracy But Bleach was written to 2001 s.o. and im using it as an anachronism? no wait a timing reference..to show how much more synical i must be now..as i make jokes about wondering if one my trophies of human awesomness might be a master lie. lets just start armegedon to see if Jesus comes back....not the movie...ok...space olympics...
@IAmTheOh -- Oh, so you're just coming on as a test of other people posting here, then?
hahaha... actually, I find that kind of cool. Have fun with it.
As for being cynical about things. Yeah, the government actually does lie. (witness current politics, the recession, the banks, etc, etc) But Apollo has too much objective evidence to have been a "hoax." The trick is being careful enough to be able to tell the difference.
@prosperomage well i called that one guy on his tone and he didnt even retaliate..he was cool thats cool. i like. dantesdoom:you seem nice and febreezed now. but you know..if i start start 'saying' crazy shit that looks like a desperate need for attention i want you all to be aware of my genuine intellegence first so you'll get the joke. if i was a moderator, the 'son of youtube', would i shine a special authority or be despised as an eletist? not that i am a moderator or would pretend to be...
Respond to this video... 'homeskillet' is still acceptable as the cleverer, less vanilla ice version of this variation of homeboy. its almost Chris Rockian in its nonwiggery contrast to homeslice. in the opinion of my sophisticant controllers, that is. because i am so easily controlled, rst assured, im only reiterating their concernces, and am therefore not responsable for defending what may appear to be my own opinion.
@prosperomage now i dont like your behavior either. what really qualifies either of you to make declarative statements about the other from your blind spot? other than what is posted? it is clear that the biggest issue here is that HUMANS HAVENT LEARNED TO COMMUNICATE ON THE NET YET. your just feeding off your own negative internal voices produced by text. Im looking at a computer screen argue with itself.sucks!youre both foolish. You read like the group o MONKEYSUITS in 2001 would. little boys.
@IAmTheOh -- Which "declarative statements" are you suggesting I was not "qualified" to make?
And how can you tell, since dantesdoom deleted over 90% of his own comments?
For instance, when I called him a liar, it was because the objective fact of the matter was that he had lied about his own immediately previous post which I had a copy of but which he had deleted from YouTube.
That was not name-calling or any "foolish" thing. It was merely an objective description of his action.
So besides evidence and all that BS about the Apollo missions being fake, why do you people "think or know" it's fake? I'm not saying that I believe it's real or that it's fake I just want to know why you guys hate it so much? Why do you hate the fact that we might have actually landed on the moon? Why? If we landed we landed what's so hard to except? To be honest I think that the people who have video "evidence" of apollo being fake are the ones who made the videos. if you agree thumbs up this.
Never tell your parents you think the Apollo missions were faked, your parents will cry when they see how stupid you are. Do you really believe the scientific communities of every nation ON FUCKING EARTH have been fooled for 40+ years but YOU know better because you were told it was fake by some queer?
Whatever kid, keep telling your friends you "know" the moon landings were fake, then watch them find someplace else to go and not return your calls because they see how fuckass stupid you are.
@Dantesdoom -- It's kind of sad that 80% of your friends are so mystified by technology.
For anyone who actually bothers to think for himself and who actually looks at the supposed "hoax evidence" it is fairly easy to prove that ALL of the published hoax-theory promoters are frauds.
If Apollo really was a hoax there would be some evidence of it outside of technologically challenged people not understanding what they're looking at.
@Dantesdoom You are a bit short on thinking, on earth a TV signals has buildings, weather, interferance from other sources, poor ariels and connections to hamper quality reception, a signal from the moon has NOTHING between it and the receiving dish on Earth. Voyager 2 was launched in 1977 and is now 13.747 billion km from earth, it is still sending signlas and they are being received.....please explain how this is possible when a signal from the moon is not!
@Dantesdoom Gravity has no effect on a signal, the moon has no magnetism, is bullshirt all you have to cover your lack of education?...ahh I see you are a yank, dont bother to answer the fact you are a dumb ass yank says everthing I need to know!
@Dantesdoom It does not have a true magnetic field, what is there is extremley weak, if this weak magnegtism can effect signals as you say then TV signals would be very disrupted in Earths strong field, the US education system is ok but people such as yourself who claim that gravity affect TV signals have been failed by it, or judging by your profanities you were a lost cause from the start. Voyager2's is still transmitting a weak signal through our magnetic field and gravity how can that be?
@Dantesdoom Whether the antennas run parallel to the ground perpendicular to it they still work despite being in a far stronger gravity and magnetic field. Radio and video are constantly being sent to and recieved from space without a problem.
@Dantesdoom Whether the antennas run parallel to the ground perpendicular to it they still work despite being in a far stronger gravity and magnetic field. Radio and video are constantly being sent to and recieved from space without a problem.
@Dantesdoom It does not have a true magnetic field, what is there is extremley weak, if this weak magnegtism can effect signals as you say then TV signals would be very disrupted in Earths strong field, the US education system is ok but people such as yourself who claim that gravity affect TV signals have been failed by it, or judging by your profanities you were a lost cause from the start. Voyager2's is still transmitting a weak signal through our magnetic field and gravity how can that be?
sadly ppl that believe in conspiracy theories, are like very religious ppl that believe in their religion. it defines them, they love their faith, and no matter how irrational it may be they will never believe it is false. u can't arrgue with them, cause theyll just argue back. it is their identity and that is something a person doesn't let go easy
ROAMINGCROAT its nice to know we are all in good hands here as you are dominating the comments and we are blessed that you, at an experienced age have all the data and answers to hand for us mere mortals.
@WELLBRAN "at an experienced age have all the data and answers to hand for us mere mortals."
Tell me, honestly, how much you've studied Apollo?
Yes, I'm 24. I'm also an engineer. And studying Apollo is a hobby of mine. You've, thus far, asked questions that I know the answers to, and your bluster about 3 seconds being optimistic or remote control not existing is simply that - bluster. If you think I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong. Don't act as if I've somehow insulted you by correcting you.
When one of the astronauts falls over, he doesn't push himself back up to his feet. Rather he is pulled up on a string. Even with 1/6th gravity he would have to bend his arms a bit then straighten them out to give himself a push. Unfortunately for NASA, the guy pulling the strings didn't wait for him to do this and just yanked him up. How embarassing.
@vincewansink "he doesn't push himself back up to his feet"
Do you believe everything Percy says, or do you try to investigate for yourself?
In that particular instance, Charlie Duke has his left arm outstretched and is grabbing on to John Young's outstretched right arm. Duke uses the leverage from Young's arm and his two feet on the ground to pull (not push) himself up.
Percy fails to mention that pertinent detail because if he did, he'd be hard pressed to sell his little movies.
@roamingcroat First of all, who's Percy? And secondly, I can see for myself that he's not pulling himself up. Why is it so hard for people to believe that the government might lie to you? They had motive and opportunity. I don't believe for a second that they were able to do in 1969 what they said they did. I don't even think they can do it today.
@vincewansink "I can see for myself that he's not pulling himself up."
Can you now. That's pretty impressive, given that John Young is holding Charlie Duke's hand at the time. How is it you can not only see invisible wires pulling him up, but also see the force on Young's hand to see that Duke isn't pulling himself up that way?
And Percy is the guy that gave you the idea he wasn't pulling himself up. watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE at 2:10 is what you're referring to, no doubt...
What motive? To beat the USSR? Why didn't the USSR call them out on that, then? How is it a taxi driver (Bart Sibrel) can uncover a hoax but qualified Russian scientists and cosmonauts know that Apollo went to the Moon? And what opportunity?
"I don't believe for a second that they were able to do in 1969 what they said they did."
Why not? Specifically, I mean. What prevented it from being possible in 1969?
@vincewansink -- Of course the U.S. government would lie to us. They do it all the time, on subjects a lot more important to most people than the Apollo mission.
But they also developed a whole bunch of technology. That simply cannot be denied.
And the Apollo missions were real.
I've seen people who are basically just mystified by technology in general say "they couldn't have done it in 1969." But they never have any specific reasons.
What would they have needed that they didn't have?
Isn't it interesting that the "moon rock" supposedly given to the Dutch prime minister by Buzz Aldrin in 1969 has turned out to be a fake? Are there any real moon rocks out there?
@vincewansink "...supposedly given to the Dutch prime minister by Buzz Aldrin in 1969..."
Yeah, guy, that doesn't exist.
A few years ago (in the last decade or so), the children of a former prime minister found a piece of cardboard commemorating the visit of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins to the Netherlands. Nearby, they found a rock. They made the assumption that the piece cardboard and the rock went together, and gave it to an art museum as a "Moon rock." It turns out, they were wrong.
@vincewansink Fair enough. The following video explains the situation and is quite thoroughly sourced: watch?v=mHALUGcEEiQ . The relevant fact is that Apollo 11 astronauts didn't hand out Moon rocks while on their world tour. The first good will rocks weren't given out until the next year.
And there is no evidence that anyone associated with the U.S. government gave Drees any rocks whatsoever.
How is it that objects and people with the bright sun in the background and clearly in darkly shadowed areas are fully lit up for the camera? Did they use an automatic flash? Or did somebody open a door in the studio letting some extra light in?
@vincewansink "How is it that objects and people with the bright sun in the background and clearly in darkly shadowed areas are fully lit up for the camera?"
They're not "fully" lit, they're lit by fill lighting from the surface of the Moon, the Earth, and any bright objects on the Moon (a space suit, for instance). Furthermore, such images are generally overexposed in the sunlit areas, although they're not necessarily completely blown out.
Why do several pictures taken "miles apart" have the exact same mountain ranges in the background, but different foregrounds? Obviously, more evidence of tampering with the pictures. They're not being honest.
@vincewansink "Why do several pictures taken "miles apart" have the exact same mountain ranges in the background"
The mountains are miles away. Generally, you can see subtle changes in the background mountains in different pictures, but they're not at all obvious. Go to some place like Colorado, where you have a prominent front range. Stand 10-15 miles away from the foothills and move 1-2 miles North. There will be very little difference in the appearance of the mountains.
How come some of the pictures show the camera reticules either not in the center of the image or behind objects in the image? That is only possible if the images were tampered with. That is 100% undeniable proof that they are not being 100% truthful with us.
@vincewansink "...either not in the center of the image"
If the center fiducial isn't in the center, it's a cropped image, or possibly a stitched composite photo.
"...or behind objects in the image"
Generally, that's a result of carefully choosing the worst quality copy of an image to make your point. Bright objects tend to wash out the thin fiducials, bad quality tends to make the fiducials completely disappear in this situation. The Sibrels and Percys of this world always go for bad quality.
How come the film was not compromised by all the radiation on the moon? Even the film that was taken out of the camera on the surface of the moon returned to earth in perfect condition. It's a miracle!!!
@vincewansink 1. No, they wouldn't have. That would have required thousands of people to keep quiet, an enormous vacuum chamber (much bigger than the SPF) for the Grand Prix, and thousands of ignorant or corrupt geologists and other scientists to play along (see, for instance, the Solar wind collector).
2. And yet the Soviets/Russians agreed that Apollo had gone to the Moon... curious, don't you think?
3. *None of the evidence points to a hoax - fixed that for you.
Is a thin layer of aluminum really sufficient to protect astronauts from the van Allen radiation belts? And are nylon space suits with plastic zippers supposed to keep the intense radiation on the moon's surface at bay?
My dentist still hides behind a wall when she takes x-rays.
What intense radiation on the Moon's surface are you talking about? You do realize the EVA's weren't prolonged, right? As for the Van Allen belts, they took the path of least radiation and in fact took the shortest route through the belts to minimize exposure. In addition to that, the astronauts took dosomiters with them to track the amount of radiation they received, and even then... well we learned it wasn't enough shielding/ Many of the astronauts have had complications since
You do realize all the computers needed to do back then was t he same as a simple graphing calculator does today. Less even. It was a matter of keeping the ship aligned on a 3 coordinate plane (x/y/z) relative to it's destination. The majority of the actual computing was done by the Mainframes on Earth, and related to the astronauts in space.
Another simple thing you could have found out doing a few minutes of actual research.
@vincewansink "The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory."
So? What calculations did it need to do that it was incapable of? Remember, the astronauts weren't playing Tetris up there. The Mercury capsule didn't even have a digital computer!
"Is a thin layer of aluminum really sufficient to protect astronauts from the van Allen radiation belts?"
Yes.
"no lunar orbiter has ever seen them again"
False. LRO has imaged all the landing sites. watch?v=ofT_QEdEZyo
NASA recently announced that it would take scientists 15 years to design and build a craft to go back to the Moon. Why when we have allegedly been there 6 times already?
J. F. K announced in 1962 that Man would travel to the Moon by the end of the decade. Just 7 years later Man allegedly did just that. But more than 40 years later in a World that is vastly technologically superior to the 1960's, why would it take over twice as long to do the same thing today?
Actually it was the collective will of over 400,000 people at the time along with 5% of the federal budget during the 1960's that got us there the first time. After which the program, due to budgetary concerns and lack of interest on the public's part, was cancelled, (BY LBJ). Nixon could have reinstated the program and used the Apollo Applications Program to go to Mars, but was sold on the Shuttle concept. This is all a matter of the historical record.
Why is NASA now sending probes to the moon to investigate the effects radiation might have on humans if we've already sent people to the moon over 40 years ago?
Is that the primary mission of these probes or is that just a side benefit? Also, since when is it bad to refine your figures? We're still using the basic principles of atom smashing to refine our attempts at making a unified theory of the universe. Does that mean that the 4 elementary forces don't exist?
We've been sending people into space for 50 years now, and we still study their reaction to microgravity. Science continues to progress, and that includes refining our understanding of the world around us, repeating experiments, and constantly getting new data.
"Why when we have allegedly been there 6 times already?"
Money. Compare NASA's budget and obligations from 1961-1969 to their budget and obligations 2004-2010. You'll see a big difference.
Those landers will stay on the moon for thousands, if not millions of years, by far outlasting the pyramids, the great wall of china, religion, maybe even humanity itself...
How comes we cannot just laugh about hoaxers? I for one feel really appalled by their constant existence. To know such people are around in quite some numbers makes me feel like Im living in pure shit. Maybe its because collective stupidity is the worst nightmare imaginable.
@Skandalos Yes like the hoax that Germans were burning people in ovens..all a hoax..until someone got there and took the people down the road to view it....then they believed
I'm intrigued - how come we can see the flash of the bolts blowing but NOT the exhaust? I understand that the exhaust should not be visible in a vaccuum, but why should we be able to see the fire of the explosive bolts? Are there any scientifically minded individuals reading this that could enlighten me?
@CokeSupply I'm not sure you see the explosive bolts. I think what you're seeing is the ignition transient of the engine. For instance, this videos show's an 11 second burn of the Shuttle orbital maneuvering system watch?v=nnhpMfBbhkk . But you only see a brief burst as the engine performance starts up and settles down.
I'm pretty sure we're seeing the same sort of thing in this video.
IDIOTS! The stars were removed by the secret service reptiles, driving Nazi ufos, inspired by ancient aliens, paid for by the world bank, built by freemasons, and ordered by the Illuminati.
@zdravkodren13 Would you like to know where the stars are? Try this: go camping in the mountains, far from any city. Take a properly exposed picture during the day time of the landscape and note the f-stop and shutter speed on your camera (use a low ISO film or setting). Wait for night, where you'll have an absolutely fantastic view of the Milky Way, unmired by light pollution. Now try to take a picture of the stars using the f-stop and shutter speed you noted earlier. You'll only see black.
@RaerY1959 The camera was remote controlled from Houston. A fellow named Ed Fendell was at the controls, and he calculated ahead of time how far the rover (with the camera attached) would have to be parked from the Lunar Module to allow him to capture this footage (which the commander, Gene Cernan, did). Then he anticipated the time delay, and pressed the proper button at the right time to capture this footage.
Yes i was wondering about that too. Also whenever you see two astronauts moving about, a third person is operating the video camera as evedence by pans an tilts and even a hand held shot to keep them in frame. Can anyone give a explanation?
@beastiesmovie1957 For Apollo 15-17, a remote controlled camera was mounted on the lunar rover. It was controlled by Ed Fendell in Mission Control. He worked with a 1.2 second control delay, but by the third mission, he had anticipated the countdown accurately enough to send the pan and zoom commands at the correct time to catch the ascent of the module.
ahhhjajajajajajajajjajajjjajhaaaaaajjjajjajjajajjajjajajjaja what a crappy video .this is a joke right.hahahhah cmon jajja are you for real who post this video?EMJRP dude you are a funny one hajajjajaj .it looks so fake...OHHHH WAIT..THE OFICIAL ONE..OHHHHH THATS EVEN WORSE .AJAJJAJJAAJAJJAJJA BURN
@Peterbj -- This was the 3rd try to get it right by following the lift-off by remote control from Houston. (Notice that they are often a little behind in following the motion of the astronauts when they are walking around in many of the videos.)
Apollo 15: the servo motor in the camera had a problem and they didn't pan up. Apollo 16: they tried to pan but didn't quite follow it well enough. Apollo 17 (this one) they got it about right (although they did kind of lose it toward the end).
APOLLO FUN FACT: The LM ascent engine provided 1587 kilograms (3500 pounds) of thrust. The engine burned liquid propellants: the fuel was 50% hydrazine and 50% unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine; the oxidizer was nitrogen tetroxide. These propellants are hypergolic; that is, they ignite spontaneously when brought together in the rocket's combustion chamber.
i just can't believe NASA think people would buy this .... ooo shit some people eat this up and believe it real .... People stop kidding yourself it FAKE FAKE FAKE .
@THREESIXNINE100 Thank you...all these people on here are fucking morons if they think this is even close to real. Transformers looks more convincing.
Most of these hoaxturds barely made it out of high school, let alone have advanced degrees in any of the sciences that are required to put men in space. They will discount the vast majority of the world's scientists who have verified the data and pick some goofball like Bart Sibrel or Jarrah White as their source for all things technical. Looking at their channels and disjointed rambling video comments, it's easy to see where their heads are. Squarely up their collective asses.
@losability The propellant used in the lunar module (Aerozine 50) doesn't produce lots of visible smoke and flame like some other rocket fuels do. Its exhaust is almost invisible. Look up the photo of the Gemini 11 launch, because the Titan II GLV used the same fuel. You'll see what I mean.
Do you guys really think this is REAL ? ? It looks like a black and white episode of frigging Buck Rodgers or something. Where are the suspension wires.? Its a frigging joke.
Notice the line between the foreground and background, its in all these phoney NASA shots and it's in Kubrick's film 2001. It's called front Screen Projection.
Yes, exactly what a hydrazine engine in a vacuum and surrounded by the bright moon's surface should look like. Even the exhaust of a kerosene engine can barely be seen in a vacuum.
OMGWTFBBQ "no exhaust" this has been explained, PATIENTLY, from the very first day 40 years ago, but for some reason there's always a brain dead sack of leftover assfuckings that never gets the word and keeps repeating the same tired horseshit. We call them hoax advocates.
shut the fuck up. type in google 'Американцы на Луне великий прорыв или космическая аф е ра?' , enter the second link, enter chapter 'Покидая Луну' and than use google translator to translate it into english. quality is sufficient.
Check out "Apollo 17: the untold story" for your answers
This was filmed by remote control from earth and had a 6 second time delay due to the distance.
The bloke who filmed it practised for months to try and get it right and apollo 17 was the only successful filming of the ascent.
"Apollo 17 untold story" for your answers to names. Watched it on tele the other night.
pissedupgeoff 4 days ago
Wait, who was filming?
tardz13 1 week ago
FAKE!
enterscope 3 weeks ago
Movie magic! Wow... Stanley was a true genius! USA! USA!
Virakotxa 3 weeks ago
Where did you get this footage? I am working on a project and I need to know for my bibliography.
diercks777 1 month ago
te tech was shit back then WHY THE FUCK is the moon videos guarded hell and high water???? Its more important than guarding 911 or ANY of conspiracy facts???? why ? why ? why ? why ?
caessarion 1 month ago in playlist Moon Hoax
This has been flagged as spam show
"Fake because the camera was following the pod"
-
The last 3 lunar landings carried a lunar rover to the moon to extend the range of exploration of the astronauts. The rovers carried a remotely controlled TV camera which was used to record the lunar liftoff of Apollos 15, 16 and 17.
3KS26 2 months ago 3
SUPPORT THE SEPT 11TH, RESEARCH AN DICOVERY PROJECT!
SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Sept11Discovery 2 months ago
wheres the ignition and the flames when it takes of
milliondollaabo333 3 months ago
@milliondollaabo333 No visible flames. Most rocket fuels don't show any visible flames in vacuum. That can even be seen on the videos where cameras onboard rockets film the separation of stages.
YDDES 2 months ago
it zoomed out immmediately on blast, not 1.2 seconds (for the signal to be sent to earth) plus response time by the operator (say 1 sec) plus 1.2 sec to send command back....equals at least 3 seconds........and that would only be IF they had a remote camera.......bunkum
itsreddersinhell 3 months ago
Comment removed
3KS26 2 months ago
Comment removed
3KS26 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@itsreddersinhell
@itsreddersinhell
You are stating this video is fake because they got the timing perfect which is not possible since there is a 1.2 second lag to the moon. By this statement you are suggesting that NASA scientists don't know how to do calculate the speed of radio / light.
You sir are an idiot!
3KS26 2 months ago
Sorry, who filmed this?, zoomed in and out and manouevered the camera?? is he still up there?......................oops.
itsreddersinhell 3 months ago
@itsreddersinhell It was remotely controlled from mission command back on Earth. Not so hard. Radio travels at the speed of light, and the lag time is 1.2 seconds each way.
krisdevalle 3 months ago
Hey guys, look at these cool rocks i found.... *module blasts off the moon*
WAIT FOR ME!!!
turbodaxter1 3 months ago
how the camera guy go home are there a camera leave there?
alry2001 4 months ago
Sucks for the camera guy.
XxToxicSpikesxX 5 months ago
@XxToxicSpikesxX -- Nope. No problem for the camera guy. He was sitting in a comforable chair in Houston, pushing buttons to aim the camera, of course tracking the count-down so he could hit the "pan up" button about 2 seconds before it got to zero.
Look it up.
Radio remote control was invented almost 70 years eariler by Nicola Tesla.
prosperomage 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
@Dantesdoom -- ALSO ... You said:
"The only comments that have been left on this page were not associated with musicbrev."
Which is just more proof that you're REALLY bad at lying. Because your comment immediately previous to your first comment to me was directly to 'musicbrev'.
It's still there. As of this instant, it is on page 2.
Which means it was probably on page 1 when you replyed to me.
You ought to go and delete it now so you have half a chance of looking like you're not lying.
prosperomage 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
@Dantesdoom -- YouTube my life? Because of a couple posts 6 hours apart after I check my e-mail?
No.
I just enjoy harassing hoax-theory cult members.
Especially the kind who think up nonsense like "gravity can affect radio waves."
Yes. That IS what you said. I don't really care if you deny it or not. There doesn't need to be any "proof" posted because it doesn't matter to anyone else. I saw it. So I can harass you about it.
It's just another example of hoax-theory cult member thinking.
prosperomage 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
@Dantesdoom -- Here's one reason I answer some of these posts ... (not that you're gonna answer this question because nobody ever does): I'm really curious why hoax-theory believers just make up shit.
Like "gravity affects radio waves." Or not even that one. How about "there should have been a blast crater." Are you into that one, too? Or maybe "the radiation would have killed them." That one's funny if you dig into it.
Since you're one who did it: Why do people make up shit like that??
prosperomage 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
Gavitational lensing is a phenomenon that can be detected around HUGE masses. It slightly bends the line of the EM wave. It is not an issue with a signal from the moon to the earth.
Again, I recommend: Read a book.
And not just to pick up some random terms to use randomly.
So yes, if you're talking about gravitational lensing being an issue with signal clarity from the moon, you DO make up shit.
But at least you're starting to get a clue about tolling being hard when you're dumb.
prosperomage 5 months ago
@Dantesdoom -- The thing is this: A couple years ago, after having basically zero interest in it for a number of decades, at the 40th anniversary of Apollo, after being reminded of it on the news or something, I browsed a couple YouTube channels to look at some old Apollo videos.
I saw a couple videos by people claiming it was a "hoax."
I was intrigued. I made a bit of a hobby out of looking into each of the "hoax theories."
NONE of them work logically. Every one is absolute nonsense.
prosperomage 5 months ago
Now, whether Apollo went to the moon or not is not a particularly important thing.
I mean, if you want to criticize the U.S. government there are a LOT of much more relevant and horrendously evil things that it has done and continues to do. And all of NASA is a pretty small corner of the U.S. govt's budget.
But I keep wondering why people who claim to be "truth seekers" swallow such absolute bullshit as all of the "hoax theories" without even analyzing or questioning them.
prosperomage 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
OK. Well, you were good for a couple laughs anyway, which is all I really expected when I started.
For instance ... you say such delusional stuff as "you waste your life" when the only thing I've done recently is spend about 5 minutes a couple times over the past 3 days or so.
If you actually would study some physics (which is the real fun part) you might be able to get over some of your delusions and actually understand how Apollo functioned.
But you won't.
So you just run away.
Goodbye.
prosperomage 5 months ago
@Dantesdoom i would just like to take this opportunity to call you a total dick. something we can all agree is an established fact you have proven beyond a moonshadow of a doubt. also, im nonviolent, but anyone who types or says homeslice ought to decked in the face. oh shit i typed it too.
IAmTheOh 3 months ago
@IAmTheOh Fair enough. I just started posting on this video to get a rise out of some people. I will also admit homeslice is a sacrilegious word. I shouldn't have used it.
Dantesdoom 3 months ago
@Dantesdoom Oh im just givin you chit to see whos really whiny and whos actually cool. its not about any debat just who knows how to type without being an *hole. im learning, myself. dont mind me. kung fu test of the overmind. i just do my job hey ! are oyu reading faster thani type? oh your the other guy ok dudes be cool!!!!
.
IAmTheOh 3 months ago
@IAmTheOh actually i went to space camp and everything was plausable and awesome to believe when i was 12. that was before Kurt Kobain. Not that that was a conspiracy But Bleach was written to 2001 s.o. and im using it as an anachronism? no wait a timing reference..to show how much more synical i must be now..as i make jokes about wondering if one my trophies of human awesomness might be a master lie. lets just start armegedon to see if Jesus comes back....not the movie...ok...space olympics...
IAmTheOh 3 months ago
@IAmTheOh -- Oh, so you're just coming on as a test of other people posting here, then?
hahaha... actually, I find that kind of cool. Have fun with it.
As for being cynical about things. Yeah, the government actually does lie. (witness current politics, the recession, the banks, etc, etc) But Apollo has too much objective evidence to have been a "hoax." The trick is being careful enough to be able to tell the difference.
prosperomage 3 months ago
@prosperomage well i called that one guy on his tone and he didnt even retaliate..he was cool thats cool. i like. dantesdoom:you seem nice and febreezed now. but you know..if i start start 'saying' crazy shit that looks like a desperate need for attention i want you all to be aware of my genuine intellegence first so you'll get the joke. if i was a moderator, the 'son of youtube', would i shine a special authority or be despised as an eletist? not that i am a moderator or would pretend to be...
IAmTheOh 3 months ago
Respond to this video... 'homeskillet' is still acceptable as the cleverer, less vanilla ice version of this variation of homeboy. its almost Chris Rockian in its nonwiggery contrast to homeslice. in the opinion of my sophisticant controllers, that is. because i am so easily controlled, rst assured, im only reiterating their concernces, and am therefore not responsable for defending what may appear to be my own opinion.
IAmTheOh 3 months ago
@IAmTheOh can i use the word wiggery? i hope no one is offended offhandedly...
IAmTheOh 3 months ago
@IAmTheOh or 'nonwiggery' as it were?
IAmTheOh 3 months ago
@prosperomage now i dont like your behavior either. what really qualifies either of you to make declarative statements about the other from your blind spot? other than what is posted? it is clear that the biggest issue here is that HUMANS HAVENT LEARNED TO COMMUNICATE ON THE NET YET. your just feeding off your own negative internal voices produced by text. Im looking at a computer screen argue with itself.sucks!youre both foolish. You read like the group o MONKEYSUITS in 2001 would. little boys.
IAmTheOh 3 months ago
@IAmTheOh -- Which "declarative statements" are you suggesting I was not "qualified" to make?
And how can you tell, since dantesdoom deleted over 90% of his own comments?
For instance, when I called him a liar, it was because the objective fact of the matter was that he had lied about his own immediately previous post which I had a copy of but which he had deleted from YouTube.
That was not name-calling or any "foolish" thing. It was merely an objective description of his action.
prosperomage 3 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
haha
everytime i need a good laugh, im goin to replay this!
thanx for the laughs, nasa
XTheSonofTheSunX 5 months ago
Whats mad and goes to the moon?
A looney module!!!!!
moon666watcher 5 months ago
interesting: fake landscape, fake little module, fake take off
Mm, u can learn a lot
I thing US are afraid of what people will say about them in some years ....
ShuaGo 5 months ago
looks like button moon
AlanClinton123 5 months ago
Oh shit! We forgot dude with camera!
the3dom 5 months ago
So besides evidence and all that BS about the Apollo missions being fake, why do you people "think or know" it's fake? I'm not saying that I believe it's real or that it's fake I just want to know why you guys hate it so much? Why do you hate the fact that we might have actually landed on the moon? Why? If we landed we landed what's so hard to except? To be honest I think that the people who have video "evidence" of apollo being fake are the ones who made the videos. if you agree thumbs up this.
KrisLovesAnime100 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
@KrisLovesAnime100
i dont hate it. it's just obvious to me that apollo missions are a fraud. look into atmospheric light scattering properties.
grevin789 5 months ago
the camera on the rover shot the liftoff, some ppl are so fucking stupid
CryptWarrior69 6 months ago
Who shot? I think an anonymous remained on the Moon. May be He still alive.
montrealfilme 6 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 6 months ago
@Dantesdoom Sadly you are an intellectual failure.
TheFACTSRUS 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
@Dantesdoom Easy to claim on YouTube. I could say I have a master's degree in engineering. Who on here would know?
However, there are a lot of very intelligent people who believe a lot of very ridiculous ideas.
419Films 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
@Dantesdoom
Never tell your parents you think the Apollo missions were faked, your parents will cry when they see how stupid you are. Do you really believe the scientific communities of every nation ON FUCKING EARTH have been fooled for 40+ years but YOU know better because you were told it was fake by some queer?
Blahblobify 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
@Dantesdoom
Wow stupid people have stupid kids.
your dad is an idiot.
Two channels on TV/ Did he grow up in cambodia?
Clear reception from the original broadcast? Did he look at it?
Fucking morons.
Blahblobify 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
@Dantesdoom
Yes thank you asshole I am 60 years old.
You know shit about nothing.
Blahblobify 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
@Dantesdoom
Whatever kid, keep telling your friends you "know" the moon landings were fake, then watch them find someplace else to go and not return your calls because they see how fuckass stupid you are.
Blahblobify 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
@Dantesdoom -- It's kind of sad that 80% of your friends are so mystified by technology.
For anyone who actually bothers to think for himself and who actually looks at the supposed "hoax evidence" it is fairly easy to prove that ALL of the published hoax-theory promoters are frauds.
If Apollo really was a hoax there would be some evidence of it outside of technologically challenged people not understanding what they're looking at.
prosperomage 5 months ago
@Dantesdoom You are a bit short on thinking, on earth a TV signals has buildings, weather, interferance from other sources, poor ariels and connections to hamper quality reception, a signal from the moon has NOTHING between it and the receiving dish on Earth. Voyager 2 was launched in 1977 and is now 13.747 billion km from earth, it is still sending signlas and they are being received.....please explain how this is possible when a signal from the moon is not!
musicbruv 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
@Dantesdoom Gravity has no effect on a signal, the moon has no magnetism, is bullshirt all you have to cover your lack of education?...ahh I see you are a yank, dont bother to answer the fact you are a dumb ass yank says everthing I need to know!
musicbruv 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
@Dantesdoom It does not have a true magnetic field, what is there is extremley weak, if this weak magnegtism can effect signals as you say then TV signals would be very disrupted in Earths strong field, the US education system is ok but people such as yourself who claim that gravity affect TV signals have been failed by it, or judging by your profanities you were a lost cause from the start. Voyager2's is still transmitting a weak signal through our magnetic field and gravity how can that be?
musicbruv 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
@Dantesdoom Whether the antennas run parallel to the ground perpendicular to it they still work despite being in a far stronger gravity and magnetic field. Radio and video are constantly being sent to and recieved from space without a problem.
musicbruv 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dantesdoom Whether the antennas run parallel to the ground perpendicular to it they still work despite being in a far stronger gravity and magnetic field. Radio and video are constantly being sent to and recieved from space without a problem.
musicbruv 5 months ago
@Dantesdoom It does not have a true magnetic field, what is there is extremley weak, if this weak magnegtism can effect signals as you say then TV signals would be very disrupted in Earths strong field, the US education system is ok but people such as yourself who claim that gravity affect TV signals have been failed by it, or judging by your profanities you were a lost cause from the start. Voyager2's is still transmitting a weak signal through our magnetic field and gravity how can that be?
musicbruv 5 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 6 months ago
Comment removed
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
sadly ppl that believe in conspiracy theories, are like very religious ppl that believe in their religion. it defines them, they love their faith, and no matter how irrational it may be they will never believe it is false. u can't arrgue with them, cause theyll just argue back. it is their identity and that is something a person doesn't let go easy
patrickmisa 6 months ago
This video is hilarious!
dmh497 6 months ago
ROAMINGCROAT its nice to know we are all in good hands here as you are dominating the comments and we are blessed that you, at an experienced age have all the data and answers to hand for us mere mortals.
WELLBRAN 6 months ago
@WELLBRAN "at an experienced age have all the data and answers to hand for us mere mortals."
Tell me, honestly, how much you've studied Apollo?
Yes, I'm 24. I'm also an engineer. And studying Apollo is a hobby of mine. You've, thus far, asked questions that I know the answers to, and your bluster about 3 seconds being optimistic or remote control not existing is simply that - bluster. If you think I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong. Don't act as if I've somehow insulted you by correcting you.
roamingcroat 6 months ago
When one of the astronauts falls over, he doesn't push himself back up to his feet. Rather he is pulled up on a string. Even with 1/6th gravity he would have to bend his arms a bit then straighten them out to give himself a push. Unfortunately for NASA, the guy pulling the strings didn't wait for him to do this and just yanked him up. How embarassing.
vincewansink 8 months ago
@vincewansink "he doesn't push himself back up to his feet"
Do you believe everything Percy says, or do you try to investigate for yourself?
In that particular instance, Charlie Duke has his left arm outstretched and is grabbing on to John Young's outstretched right arm. Duke uses the leverage from Young's arm and his two feet on the ground to pull (not push) himself up.
Percy fails to mention that pertinent detail because if he did, he'd be hard pressed to sell his little movies.
roamingcroat 8 months ago
@roamingcroat First of all, who's Percy? And secondly, I can see for myself that he's not pulling himself up. Why is it so hard for people to believe that the government might lie to you? They had motive and opportunity. I don't believe for a second that they were able to do in 1969 what they said they did. I don't even think they can do it today.
vincewansink 8 months ago
@vincewansink "I can see for myself that he's not pulling himself up."
Can you now. That's pretty impressive, given that John Young is holding Charlie Duke's hand at the time. How is it you can not only see invisible wires pulling him up, but also see the force on Young's hand to see that Duke isn't pulling himself up that way?
And Percy is the guy that gave you the idea he wasn't pulling himself up. watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE at 2:10 is what you're referring to, no doubt...
roamingcroat 8 months ago
@vincewansink "They had motive and opportunity."
What motive? To beat the USSR? Why didn't the USSR call them out on that, then? How is it a taxi driver (Bart Sibrel) can uncover a hoax but qualified Russian scientists and cosmonauts know that Apollo went to the Moon? And what opportunity?
"I don't believe for a second that they were able to do in 1969 what they said they did."
Why not? Specifically, I mean. What prevented it from being possible in 1969?
roamingcroat 8 months ago
@vincewansink -- Of course the U.S. government would lie to us. They do it all the time, on subjects a lot more important to most people than the Apollo mission.
But they also developed a whole bunch of technology. That simply cannot be denied.
And the Apollo missions were real.
I've seen people who are basically just mystified by technology in general say "they couldn't have done it in 1969." But they never have any specific reasons.
What would they have needed that they didn't have?
nesokretep 8 months ago
Isn't it interesting that the "moon rock" supposedly given to the Dutch prime minister by Buzz Aldrin in 1969 has turned out to be a fake? Are there any real moon rocks out there?
vincewansink 8 months ago
@vincewansink "...supposedly given to the Dutch prime minister by Buzz Aldrin in 1969..."
Yeah, guy, that doesn't exist.
A few years ago (in the last decade or so), the children of a former prime minister found a piece of cardboard commemorating the visit of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins to the Netherlands. Nearby, they found a rock. They made the assumption that the piece cardboard and the rock went together, and gave it to an art museum as a "Moon rock." It turns out, they were wrong.
roamingcroat 8 months ago
@roamingcroat the fake moon rock doesn't exist?. Sorry, but I'm more inclined to believe the Telegraph and the BBC than some guy on the internet.
vincewansink 8 months ago
@vincewansink Fair enough. The following video explains the situation and is quite thoroughly sourced: watch?v=mHALUGcEEiQ . The relevant fact is that Apollo 11 astronauts didn't hand out Moon rocks while on their world tour. The first good will rocks weren't given out until the next year.
And there is no evidence that anyone associated with the U.S. government gave Drees any rocks whatsoever.
roamingcroat 8 months ago
How is it that objects and people with the bright sun in the background and clearly in darkly shadowed areas are fully lit up for the camera? Did they use an automatic flash? Or did somebody open a door in the studio letting some extra light in?
vincewansink 8 months ago
@vincewansink "How is it that objects and people with the bright sun in the background and clearly in darkly shadowed areas are fully lit up for the camera?"
They're not "fully" lit, they're lit by fill lighting from the surface of the Moon, the Earth, and any bright objects on the Moon (a space suit, for instance). Furthermore, such images are generally overexposed in the sunlit areas, although they're not necessarily completely blown out.
roamingcroat 8 months ago
Why do several pictures taken "miles apart" have the exact same mountain ranges in the background, but different foregrounds? Obviously, more evidence of tampering with the pictures. They're not being honest.
vincewansink 8 months ago
@vincewansink "Why do several pictures taken "miles apart" have the exact same mountain ranges in the background"
The mountains are miles away. Generally, you can see subtle changes in the background mountains in different pictures, but they're not at all obvious. Go to some place like Colorado, where you have a prominent front range. Stand 10-15 miles away from the foothills and move 1-2 miles North. There will be very little difference in the appearance of the mountains.
roamingcroat 8 months ago
How come some of the pictures show the camera reticules either not in the center of the image or behind objects in the image? That is only possible if the images were tampered with. That is 100% undeniable proof that they are not being 100% truthful with us.
vincewansink 8 months ago
@vincewansink "...either not in the center of the image"
If the center fiducial isn't in the center, it's a cropped image, or possibly a stitched composite photo.
"...or behind objects in the image"
Generally, that's a result of carefully choosing the worst quality copy of an image to make your point. Bright objects tend to wash out the thin fiducials, bad quality tends to make the fiducials completely disappear in this situation. The Sibrels and Percys of this world always go for bad quality.
roamingcroat 8 months ago
How come the film was not compromised by all the radiation on the moon? Even the film that was taken out of the camera on the surface of the moon returned to earth in perfect condition. It's a miracle!!!
vincewansink 8 months ago
1. The moon landing would've been so easy to fake.
2. The moon landing was necessary to "win the race" against the Russians
3. All the evidence points to a hoax
vincewansink 8 months ago
@vincewansink 1. No, they wouldn't have. That would have required thousands of people to keep quiet, an enormous vacuum chamber (much bigger than the SPF) for the Grand Prix, and thousands of ignorant or corrupt geologists and other scientists to play along (see, for instance, the Solar wind collector).
2. And yet the Soviets/Russians agreed that Apollo had gone to the Moon... curious, don't you think?
3. *None of the evidence points to a hoax - fixed that for you.
roamingcroat 8 months ago
Is a thin layer of aluminum really sufficient to protect astronauts from the van Allen radiation belts? And are nylon space suits with plastic zippers supposed to keep the intense radiation on the moon's surface at bay?
My dentist still hides behind a wall when she takes x-rays.
vincewansink 8 months ago
@vincewansink
What intense radiation on the Moon's surface are you talking about? You do realize the EVA's weren't prolonged, right? As for the Van Allen belts, they took the path of least radiation and in fact took the shortest route through the belts to minimize exposure. In addition to that, the astronauts took dosomiters with them to track the amount of radiation they received, and even then... well we learned it wasn't enough shielding/ Many of the astronauts have had complications since
sardoniclysane 8 months ago
@vincewansink
due to the increased exposure they had during the moon missions. Another matter of historical record that is easily researched.
sardoniclysane 8 months ago
The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator. Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!! What a joke!
vincewansink 8 months ago
@vincewansink
You do realize all the computers needed to do back then was t he same as a simple graphing calculator does today. Less even. It was a matter of keeping the ship aligned on a 3 coordinate plane (x/y/z) relative to it's destination. The majority of the actual computing was done by the Mainframes on Earth, and related to the astronauts in space.
Another simple thing you could have found out doing a few minutes of actual research.
sardoniclysane 8 months ago
@vincewansink "The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory."
So? What calculations did it need to do that it was incapable of? Remember, the astronauts weren't playing Tetris up there. The Mercury capsule didn't even have a digital computer!
"Is a thin layer of aluminum really sufficient to protect astronauts from the van Allen radiation belts?"
Yes.
"no lunar orbiter has ever seen them again"
False. LRO has imaged all the landing sites. watch?v=ofT_QEdEZyo
roamingcroat 8 months ago
NASA recently announced that it would take scientists 15 years to design and build a craft to go back to the Moon. Why when we have allegedly been there 6 times already?
J. F. K announced in 1962 that Man would travel to the Moon by the end of the decade. Just 7 years later Man allegedly did just that. But more than 40 years later in a World that is vastly technologically superior to the 1960's, why would it take over twice as long to do the same thing today?
Because it's never been done!!!!!
vincewansink 8 months ago
@vincewansink
Actually it was the collective will of over 400,000 people at the time along with 5% of the federal budget during the 1960's that got us there the first time. After which the program, due to budgetary concerns and lack of interest on the public's part, was cancelled, (BY LBJ). Nixon could have reinstated the program and used the Apollo Applications Program to go to Mars, but was sold on the Shuttle concept. This is all a matter of the historical record.
sardoniclysane 8 months ago
Why is NASA now sending probes to the moon to investigate the effects radiation might have on humans if we've already sent people to the moon over 40 years ago?
vincewansink 8 months ago
@vincewansink
Is that the primary mission of these probes or is that just a side benefit? Also, since when is it bad to refine your figures? We're still using the basic principles of atom smashing to refine our attempts at making a unified theory of the universe. Does that mean that the 4 elementary forces don't exist?
sardoniclysane 8 months ago
@vincewansink Re: radiation probes.
We've been sending people into space for 50 years now, and we still study their reaction to microgravity. Science continues to progress, and that includes refining our understanding of the world around us, repeating experiments, and constantly getting new data.
"Why when we have allegedly been there 6 times already?"
Money. Compare NASA's budget and obligations from 1961-1969 to their budget and obligations 2004-2010. You'll see a big difference.
roamingcroat 8 months ago
Those landers will stay on the moon for thousands, if not millions of years, by far outlasting the pyramids, the great wall of china, religion, maybe even humanity itself...
HotFuzz456 8 months ago
@HotFuzz456 Right. That's why no lunar orbiter has ever seen them again. Or ever will.
vincewansink 8 months ago
@vincewansink
Wait, is your beef we have no photos of the landing sites? We do. Look up the LCROSS mission.
sardoniclysane 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
no plume. just a 1 second flash. How are you supposed to get a lift with a horizontally directed flash? Fake.
losability 8 months ago
How comes we cannot just laugh about hoaxers? I for one feel really appalled by their constant existence. To know such people are around in quite some numbers makes me feel like Im living in pure shit. Maybe its because collective stupidity is the worst nightmare imaginable.
Skandalos 8 months ago
@Skandalos Yes like the hoax that Germans were burning people in ovens..all a hoax..until someone got there and took the people down the road to view it....then they believed
WELLBRAN 6 months ago
I'm intrigued - how come we can see the flash of the bolts blowing but NOT the exhaust? I understand that the exhaust should not be visible in a vaccuum, but why should we be able to see the fire of the explosive bolts? Are there any scientifically minded individuals reading this that could enlighten me?
CokeSupply 10 months ago
@CokeSupply I'm not sure you see the explosive bolts. I think what you're seeing is the ignition transient of the engine. For instance, this videos show's an 11 second burn of the Shuttle orbital maneuvering system watch?v=nnhpMfBbhkk . But you only see a brief burst as the engine performance starts up and settles down.
I'm pretty sure we're seeing the same sort of thing in this video.
roamingcroat 10 months ago
IDIOTS! The stars were removed by the secret service reptiles, driving Nazi ufos, inspired by ancient aliens, paid for by the world bank, built by freemasons, and ordered by the Illuminati.
Everyone knows that...
kaderoder 10 months ago 4
lol that's horseshit,wtf is this video at first I thought it was somekind of a joke or something then I realized that this is the "real footage"
BTW Ed Fendell my ass,this was shot in a studio,where are the stars,bullshit if you ask me.
I heard for Ed RENDELL who was a Governor of Pennsylvania
zdravkodren13 10 months ago
@zdravkodren13 really? where are the stars? how many fucking times has that one been explained? get some new material you skeptic whores.
amor987654321 10 months ago 6
@zdravkodren13 Would you like to know where the stars are? Try this: go camping in the mountains, far from any city. Take a properly exposed picture during the day time of the landscape and note the f-stop and shutter speed on your camera (use a low ISO film or setting). Wait for night, where you'll have an absolutely fantastic view of the Milky Way, unmired by light pollution. Now try to take a picture of the stars using the f-stop and shutter speed you noted earlier. You'll only see black.
roamingcroat 10 months ago
who turned the cam up at this moment'?the man in the moon?
RaerY1959 10 months ago
@RaerY1959 The camera was remote controlled from Houston. A fellow named Ed Fendell was at the controls, and he calculated ahead of time how far the rover (with the camera attached) would have to be parked from the Lunar Module to allow him to capture this footage (which the commander, Gene Cernan, did). Then he anticipated the time delay, and pressed the proper button at the right time to capture this footage.
roamingcroat 10 months ago
@RaerY1959
Yes i was wondering about that too. Also whenever you see two astronauts moving about, a third person is operating the video camera as evedence by pans an tilts and even a hand held shot to keep them in frame. Can anyone give a explanation?
beastiesmovie1957 9 months ago
@beastiesmovie1957 For Apollo 15-17, a remote controlled camera was mounted on the lunar rover. It was controlled by Ed Fendell in Mission Control. He worked with a 1.2 second control delay, but by the third mission, he had anticipated the countdown accurately enough to send the pan and zoom commands at the correct time to catch the ascent of the module.
krisdevalle 9 months ago 4
Forgot the cameraman!
bennyg44 10 months ago
ahhhjajajajajajajajjajajjjajhaaaaaajjjajjajjajajjajjajajjaja what a crappy video .this is a joke right.hahahhah cmon jajja are you for real who post this video?EMJRP dude you are a funny one hajajjajaj .it looks so fake...OHHHH WAIT..THE OFICIAL ONE..OHHHHH THATS EVEN WORSE .AJAJJAJJAAJAJJAJJA BURN
tresampio 11 months ago
This is hilarious Thunderbirds are go!!
TauCetiX7 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thunderbirds are go
TauCetiX7 11 months ago
Comment removed
TauCetiX7 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thunderbirds are go!!
TauCetiX7 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thunderbirds are go!!
TauCetiX7 11 months ago
Anyone here because of Top Gear? Yeah Go Moon Buggy!!!
mofahu 11 months ago
Who was filming this? I assume they didn't leave anyone there. Pretty good pan-up as the thing took to the heavens.
Peterbj 1 year ago 2
@Peterbj -- This was the 3rd try to get it right by following the lift-off by remote control from Houston. (Notice that they are often a little behind in following the motion of the astronauts when they are walking around in many of the videos.)
Apollo 15: the servo motor in the camera had a problem and they didn't pan up. Apollo 16: they tried to pan but didn't quite follow it well enough. Apollo 17 (this one) they got it about right (although they did kind of lose it toward the end).
nesokretep 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APOLLO FUN FACT: The LM ascent engine provided 1587 kilograms (3500 pounds) of thrust. The engine burned liquid propellants: the fuel was 50% hydrazine and 50% unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine; the oxidizer was nitrogen tetroxide. These propellants are hypergolic; that is, they ignite spontaneously when brought together in the rocket's combustion chamber.
Synthetrix 1 year ago
Great posting thumbs up
Ashmansworth 1 year ago
so cool....and now....we are getting ready to hitch rides with the Russkies. Incomphrehenisble.
uzimodem 1 year ago
i just can't believe NASA think people would buy this .... ooo shit some people eat this up and believe it real .... People stop kidding yourself it FAKE FAKE FAKE .
THREESIXNINE100 1 year ago 7
@THREESIXNINE100 Thank you...all these people on here are fucking morons if they think this is even close to real. Transformers looks more convincing.
Dantesdoom 5 months ago
Im not buying that...sorry
sketchyfolk 1 year ago
Most of these hoaxturds barely made it out of high school, let alone have advanced degrees in any of the sciences that are required to put men in space. They will discount the vast majority of the world's scientists who have verified the data and pick some goofball like Bart Sibrel or Jarrah White as their source for all things technical. Looking at their channels and disjointed rambling video comments, it's easy to see where their heads are. Squarely up their collective asses.
Synthetrix 1 year ago 30
@Synthetrix Well, well said sir.
HotFuzz456 8 months ago
@Synthetrix that was beautifully stated
Serpico261 7 months ago
no plume. just a 1 second flash. How are you supposed to get a lift with a horizontally directed flash? Fake.
losability 1 year ago
@losability The propellant used in the lunar module (Aerozine 50) doesn't produce lots of visible smoke and flame like some other rocket fuels do. Its exhaust is almost invisible. Look up the photo of the Gemini 11 launch, because the Titan II GLV used the same fuel. You'll see what I mean.
cengime 1 year ago
@cengime
In a vacuum, even a kerosene fueled engine doesn't produce a distinct plume. There is simply nothing to interact with the hot gases.
blablubb12345 1 year ago 2
Do you guys really think this is REAL ? ? It looks like a black and white episode of frigging Buck Rodgers or something. Where are the suspension wires.? Its a frigging joke.
5lowrollD 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The moon missions were faked in a studio. Here's a link to some of the evidence.
3W's (dot) spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
Cosmored2 1 year ago
FAKE FAKE FAKE
BRUTUALTRUTH 1 year ago
nothing like leaving shit everywhere we go! lol typical americans :)
crx350x1 1 year ago
Notice the line between the foreground and background, its in all these phoney NASA shots and it's in Kubrick's film 2001. It's called front Screen Projection.
UNTC321 1 year ago
Notice No exhaust, anti-gravity at work here folks. This is contrary to the official record.
MJ12DAVE 1 year ago
@MJ12DAVE
Yes, exactly what a hydrazine engine in a vacuum and surrounded by the bright moon's surface should look like. Even the exhaust of a kerosene engine can barely be seen in a vacuum.
blablubb12345 1 year ago
@MJ12DAVE
OMGWTFBBQ "no exhaust" this has been explained, PATIENTLY, from the very first day 40 years ago, but for some reason there's always a brain dead sack of leftover assfuckings that never gets the word and keeps repeating the same tired horseshit. We call them hoax advocates.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago 31
@TheJomogogo
shut the fuck up. type in google 'Американцы на Луне великий прорыв или космическая аф е ра?' , enter the second link, enter chapter 'Покидая Луну' and than use google translator to translate it into english. quality is sufficient.
toopeek 9 months ago
@TheJomogogo Yeah!!! One question though.. Who the hell is panning the video cam
lieutenantAK 7 months ago