Like it or lump it, those Saturn V rockets were built, they flew they went into orbit! Whether or not they went to the moon is of some debate. Armstrong Aldrin and Collins have all been into space, but maybe they didn't walk the moon. If so what was the moon landings a cover for? Was it to put nuclear missiles into orbit to point at Russia or Vietnam?
It is said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and boy is yours so little. The so called tsunami of evidence you reference is nothing more than conjecture and wouldn’t fill a basin. Not one piece evidence you present is conclusive nor does it stand up to even the mildest of scrutiny. The only reason I can think as to why you persist in pedalling these ridiculous myths is that t is for personal gain of some sort , publicity , notoriety ....whatever.
The best method to get away with a lie is to keep your opponent guessing and confused: ie obfuscate, better be a suspect than caught red-handed. The Pentagon own satellites which can read a newspaper from over a 100 miles up even with the Earth's atmosphere standing in the way and that's what NASA can produce as "evidence" for their Lunar landing? Why the astronots didn't leave something everlasting like a star drawn on the Lunar soil, after all they played golf and taken their rover for a spin?
AND ... the scientists corrected you that the turnaround time was two days in one case, then you seem to forget being corrected.
Those ARE high-resolution photos. The LM stages are SMALL, get it?
I like how you used the Apollo 17 photo of Split Rock to support your notion that the LRO photos show only boulders, or nothing. You used a photo taken by Cernan on the moon to say that he wasn't there?
Yes, Jarrah, there are giant perfectly square "boulders" sitting there elevated by four legs above the lunar surface so that they cast long, square shadows. None of the bright points you point out cast such long, regular shadows. Those ARE boulders; the long shadows are descent stages.
In one of those photos, I can see shadows of the LM ascent stage attachment struts!
Anyway, you say the photos are doctored AND simply show boulders? Which is it?
You transcribed your own words perfectly, yet misspelled the two scientists' words repeatedly, and you included a "garbled"--you couldn't ask him to repeat what you couldn't hear? Ok.
When they told you what you didn't want to hear--that the turnaround time was very short, even to two days--you deliver us an airy "ANYWAY."
Wow, fella. You really twist reality to suit your needs.
NASA doesnt have live lunar footage from the lro...WHY is that? My lunar footage on my channel outdoes NASA by 50 fold. Go look for yourself. We never went there and never will. NASA are photoshop experts. No live lunar footage all pictures from NASA.
Another claim you imply, is that the minerals collected from the surface are different than the samples taken below the surface. There is going to be some slight differences in a case like this. "...I am not dismissing this out of reflex, I'm just putting it all in retrospect..." Or, revisionism, in your case.
Obviously NASA wanted to analyze the imagery and they then had to transfer the images from source to other formats so they can be released. There is no mystery here. And to respond to your photo-shop accusations: if it only took you that little bit of time to superimpose an image onto the image, and NASA has all of this available technology at their disposal, then why would they take so long to "clean-up" the images and release them? Your question goes both ways.
So NASA can send Probes to Mars etc. but can't make a Camera capable of Taking "DECENT" pictures of the LEM!...I agree those Points of light could be Anything...
7:59 GEE i thought the descent engines DIDN'T disturb the soil. And if you could see disturbed soil then why not the base of that fake looking model LM?
AND i thought the LM engine was turned off BEFORE the LM landed on the moon? Hence there was no CRATER. All bullshit lies -all the time.
USA has spent 60 billion dollars for a spy satellite years ago, only known more than 15 years later (Stanton Friedman statement). They have not budget to go back there ? Bullshit, must be other reason... only US growth and brainwashed since the womb believe in the nonsense that moon landings were real. And don't you know that many here that react hardly against moon hoax theories are been paid to do so, in some governamental departaments as routine of their day job? Information vs.disinformation
@skullandbonesband Check out this page on the moon missions being total fakes & the only ones here are the moontards that swear it was all real. lol
/watch?v=y1tqZyZVoDM
Funny how they all swear it was real & they can't even write a sentence correctly. lol Uneducated sheep that will believe anything as long as it's on TV or in newspapers. Check it out.
If the LRO pictures were more detailed then you, WhiteJarrah, would only complain that they "could be from the Apollo missions in the 60-70s", or that "they were edited", or that "the were from a movie", or that "it's taken from a studio", or that "you don't see enough detail", or that "the shadows looks wrong", or that "they used special effects" or ANY damn excuse you could think of.
@ed11561 The only ones who keep up this hoax nonsense are uneducated goofballs who have no understanding of physics.
You will be very hard pressed to find a single physicist who has any doubts about the moon landings at all - some of my physics teachers back in college even used moon landing footage as examples of how things would behave in low gravity, and my physics books are full of moon landing footage and example questions involving the moon landing.
@Laurelindo Funny how nothing but moontards pop up on films showing the moon landings were a hoax. lol
Ever hear of PROPAGANDA moron? That's how they do it dummy.
"THE AIR IS SAFE TO BREATHE." Christy Whitman That's why all the 1st responders are dying of lung cancers & various other maladies. I'll bet you believed that too. HAHAHAHA
I thought the topic was the moon landings, and if you just think a little for once then maybe you will realize that *thousands of scientists* CAN *prepare* for the moon landings BEFORE anyone travels there.
The astronauts practiced rigorously for several years before they travelled to the moon, that's why you can see so many photos from those trainings on Google; just search for "astronauts training apollo" and you will find LOTS of pictures.
I thought the topic was the moon landings, and if you just think a little for once then maybe you will realize that *thousands of scientists* CAN *prepare* for the moon landings before anyone travels there.
The astronauts practiced rigorously for several years before they travelled to the moon, that's why you can see so many photos from those trainings on Google; just search for "astronauts training apollo" and you will find LOTS of pictures.
these shadows are way too long. the LMs are gone . these shadows are supposed to be from the ascent launching pad. looks like they didn't take that into consideration when they made the shadows
The shadows are long and rectangular because: the LM descent stage is about ten feet tall; it's square in shape; and the photo was taken with the sun at a very low angle (sunrise or sunset).
You didn't take THIS into account because you don't understand what you're looking at because you don't know what you're talking about because you don't have an understanding of science, optics, and engineering.
@receiver69 Hehe. I noticed that all 33 video responses to Jarrah's LRO, Moment of Truth video are other videos produced by Jarrah. I guess Jarrah has a split personality, responding to his own videos as if somebody else posted the video he is responding to. Creepy, ain't it?
You have to realize that a journey to Mars is far more dangerous and complicated than a journey to the Moon - they have to make sure the astronauts won't become depressed or break down, they have to plan the landing site in order to avoid dangerous gusts, they have to grow their own food since bringing tons of conserved food is too unpractical etc etc etc.
At approx. 7:40 into the video, Mark Robinson, LRO Principle investigator states that the Chinese, Japanese and Indians took images of the Apollo landing sites and he believes "you can see markings that were made maybe by the descent engine distrubing the soil"
How did they manage to take those pictures when NASA's own astronauts, who were on the moon, couldnt actually take a picture showing any soil disturbed by the descent engine?
This is for instance the sensational picture of Apollo 12 landing site, complete with Surveyor from 1967.
How could anybody fake that? As you can see Surveyor has landed in the Surveyor crater. Pictures from Surveyor have to be consistent with this picture:
images . sciencedaily . com /2009/09/090903170011-large. j p g
(To make it work, you must remove excess spaces from the URL:)
images . sciencedaily . com /2009/09/090903170011-large. j p g
The pictures from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Zaguya orbiter are magnificent! And the landing sites can really be seen. Now you say they are both a "deception". So if the evidence does not suit you, then you just change the evidence.
That is cowardly and cheating. The evjdence is now in and you cannot change it. As a bonus we can even see the rover tracks on the Moon.
"That is cowardly and cheating. The evjdence is now in and you cannot change it. As a bonus we can even see the rover tracks on the Moon."
The only ones cheating are NASA... The LRO photos are Adobe photoshopped fakes.. Think about it .. Why would "footpaths" only show up in one pic, when the astros allegedly walked around at all of the sites?.. And where are the Rovers?.. The LRO photos are as fake as the rest of the cheesy looking Apollo pics.
@stalkervision So you have given up your arguments about all the "faked" scientific reports and instead you revert to personal attacks against me and criticizing Buzz Aldrin's private life.
You are the one that should stop posting nonsense. The whole year you have said _nothing_ of substance.
First I thought you were joking but now I realize that you know absolutely nothing about the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Zaguya mission. Jarru has been himself so thoroughly debunked that I am surprised you still think of him as an authority. He is not.
After leaving NASA, Aldrin was assigned as the Commandant of the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base, California. In March 1972, Aldrin retired from active duty after 21 years of service.
In 1985, Aldrin proposed the existence of a special spacecraft trajectory now known as the Aldrin cycler.
A spacecraft traveling on an Aldrin cycler trajectory would pass near the planets Earth and Mars on a regular (cyclic) basis.
Aldrin proposes a pair of Mars cycler vehicles providing regular transport between Earth and Mars. One cycler would travel an outbound route from Earth to Mars in about five months. Another Mars cycler in a complementary trajectory would travel from Mars to Earth, also in about five months.
@stalkervision His name is Aldrin not Aldren (!) and he is welcome to work for the WWA. He is their only contestant from the Moon. :)
If you cannot see that the Kaguya and LRO pictures are real and complementing each other you are not much of a lunar expert. On the other hand, you never were an expert. were you? And you have learned absolutely nothing.
@TheJomogogo . The LRO photos are NASA controlled, ADOBE PHOTOSHOPPED GARBAGE!.. Even if I believed Apollo astros landed on the Moon, I would be questioning why NASA still can't provide any real proof that they did.
And you ask the question: What is the matter with you?.... I will tell you what is the matter with those who's eyes are open... We can see through the lies and actually use our brains and common sense...
Time to do your own research: Try looking at Aulis.com, and take a look at the evidence presented by Jack White for a start...
Try using some critical thinking and then get back to us....
OK... Here are some facts about the so called LRO exposure...
Many experts have now taken the LRO pictures of the alleged landing sites apart and have come to the conclusion that many are false and most probably photo-shopped... And done in some cases very poorly....
As Jarrah shows... You take a close look at the pixelation of each so called "lander" and you find evidence of fraudulence....
Actual photos? Please... Give your heads a shake...
How could a "truthseeker" like you get so far from the truth? The distance between your alleged photoshop laboratories on Earth and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is some 380 000 km.
So you are lost in space with your incompetent selfmade experts --- if they exist, which I doubt very much.
No tracks under the rovers is a dead giveaway that the entire missions were frauds.
Thanks again, pt1gard, for setting the record straight...
And to those who still stick religiously to their belief that Apollo was real... I too once believed in Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny... But at some point reality does sink in!
@northerntruthseeker ... nice to see the voice of reason come in, I used to try to talk basic sense to the shills, but they are getting paid and just doing their job, which is a sad on ...
"We'll know that our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is FALSE" - William Casey, CIA Director (Quote - 1981 internal staff meeting notes).
This must be the most tasteless remark in all internet. Truth's layers is about basic science, painstakingly investigating layer after layer: molecules > atoms > neutrons > quarks.... or sun > moon > solar wind....
He was saying the young generation should go on investigating physics.
You are not helping in this urgent work, while climate change comes closer. You are just interested in bottles and bullets because YOU CANNOT THINK STRAIGHT. There! I said it! It was high time somebody did!
isn't hubble powerful enough to see the lunar surface? why not use it? i saw the imax hubble flick and they were taking pictures inside cosmic bodies millions of miles away, so why not?
@jswaffxxx Hubble takes beautiful photos of massive objects very far away (Hubble's deep field images are breath-taking every time!), but it's resolution isn't fine enough to picture something that small from that close by.
isn't hubble powerful enough to seen the lunar surface? why not use it? i saw the imax hubble flick and they were taking pictures inside cosmic bodies millions of miles away, so why not?
We know that 1 mile is about 0.83 arc seconds. The LM landers were approx 14ft in diameter (2.652e-3 miles). The LM would be 2.201e-3 arc seconds across. using Dawes' limit constant of 4.56, a telescope with a diameter of 2072" or 173 ft would be required to begin to see the LM bases from Earth. This is ignoring atmospheric haze.
Why can you see foot prints of the astronauts in Apollo 14 LRO image (according to nasa.gov), but you can't see the LRV's tracks?
And why is it the Apollo 16 LRO image shows the LM right next to a large crater; yet in the pictures taken by the astronauts the LM is not next to a large crater?
"Why can you see foot prints of the astronauts in Apollo 14 LRO image, but you can't see the LRV's tracks?"
Because Apollo 14 did not bring a lunar rover vehicle to the Moon. Much later, Apollo 15, 16 and 17 did.
Apollo 14 astronauts had a wheelbarrow for their moon rocks. I commented on the live broadcasts from Apollo4 on Finnish TV, the moon studio in Helsingfors.
Here are the footprints seen with the Apollo 12 landing stage AND SURVEYOR 3 SITTING ON THE MOON SINCE 1967 WAITING TO BE RESCUED, only 100 m from the landing site.
(To make it work, you must remove excess spaces from the URL:)
images . sciencedaily . com /2009/09/090903170011-large. j p g
Feb 2006 : Space.com "We will image the Apollo sites and you will see the descent stages sitting on the surface," Robinson said. LROC will clearly see the overall shape of that landing hardware, but won't be able to resolve such things as the insignia on the side of the descent stage, or see the stripes on astronaut-planted flags."
Aug 2009 :Space.com "At first glance, the image from LROC appears to depict a stark lunar surface devoid of any evidence that humans were there...
am i the only one that thinks those shadows are i n wrong direction? i mean, ok those are images of the lunar artifacts....but, in every picture the side of the shadow is opposite from shadows of surroundings? am i missing something?
continued from previous comment. you can even see the mars rovers tracks in the sand. that is a track that is only 4 inches wide people, and we're photographing from so much further and through and atmosphere that is ten times thicker than the moon. i'm not saying that there is a military moon base or little green men up there, but for what ever reasons, they do NOT want us to see something up there, period.
personlly, i'm sure they went to the moon. WE just didn't get to go and i'm sure i know why, BUT, i do find it strange that nasa claims we can't get a good image of the hardware. if you do a search you will find pics of the mars rover. these pics were taken from and orbit 10 times further than the recent moon pics and by a much less advanced camera. it is just sickening really and insulting too. you can see the rover which is less than 10% as big as apollo. you can even see and antenna. hummm
@Tweekerhead here is your link- // apod. nasa. gov / apod / ap061009. html
keep in mind that the wheel diameter is 4 inches. the funny thing is that as you can see. the link is a nasa link, lol. also, just google "orbital pictures of mars rover". there are more including a really good one of the lander and the rover parked next to it. i'd rather you not admit to being wrong and simply accept yourself as now better informed :) we both win...and can bring us all a bit closer to the truth.
@governmentcheese411 I assume we've all seen those pics'.Those are real nice shots, but you can't see the antenna,camera mast shadow, not the antenna.
If I sounded uncivil before, it's because these hoax believers can be a frustrated and nasty.
I know they spent more than $220mil. more for the Mars Orbiter, and it flew around 300k altitude. LRO flew probably 50k. But hey, I can see the foot prints left on the Moon from LRO.
But no, you cannot see the antenna of the Mars rover, the shadow yes.
@Tweekerhead ok... well go with being able to see the camera mast tower. how big is it? maybe 3 ft. by ??? i'm not a hoaxer, thank god, but i am interested in the research and have uncovered more than enough to conclude we've been kept out of the loop on some things. that is obvious. are they hiding aliens or UFOs? i really doubt it, but i have personally caught a few lies myself.
@Tweekerhead now as far as the LRO vs MRO pics go. that is not only a 250k distance difference, but don't forget that Mars's atmosphere is several times denser than the moon. and just like our atmosphere. it severely hampers optics when compared to open space like the LRO. if you could see a foot print. than shouldn't seeing the landers be fairly easy. yet all we see is a pixel. a dot. period. and between the LRO and JAXA etc. having far better optics looking much closer and through 0 atmosphere
give us the real color of the moon and show us the back side of the moon images, we are stupid, we know come up and be open, jajaj lol yeah right, never a straight answer nasa,
@WhiteJarrah: Hi, I was actually curious about the telescope and went to the web page you suggested. The ultra high resolution imaging doesn't seem to refer to "visible light" imaging, but reconstructions from interferometric measurements of radiation from the star. So the telescope might not be able to photograph landing sites after all :(
@WhiteJarrah - It's true - You would need a telescope 600 feet in diameter to see the landing hardware on the moon. We don't have one that big. Give it up, we landed on the moon.
No goal posts were moved. We didn't request NASA-controlled photos of the landing sites, we repeated to personally see the landing sites through ground based telescopes. Such as the VLT which has a resolution capable of resolving objects that small. So far the guys at the VLT have had no luck finding them.
@WhiteJarrah A question for you Jarrah: If an idependant telescope eventually succeeds in capturing images of the Apollo relics on the Moon's surface, what will you do? You have stated in the past that this would be acceptable proof of the reality of a manned moonlanding. Will you admit defeat on You Tube and will you apologise to the surviving astronauts and the thousands of NASA employees whom you have defamed for years now? I assure you, this is not an attack but a serious question.
We went to the Moon! People who don't believe it should be kicked in the genitals for being unpatriotic. I for one am proud that we went to the Moon with 1969 technology- on the very first try! Go team! We really schooled the Commies, didn't we? I don't know about you, but I've seen the TV footage, video footage, and I heard we even have genuine moonrocks. I rely on this filtered information to make my decision- and we went to the Moon, damnit!!!
@greenfruitface Hmmm, I was skeptical, but I have decided you are correct. Afterall, thinking is awfully time consuming and tiresome; I'll let the TV do it for me from now on! Hurray!
@pecjames You are correct, sir- don't be skeptical. That's unpatriotic. It really is. When I come home for the day, I immediately turn on my TV and digest the news. I accept what they tell me as fact. When I watched us land on the Moon in 1969, I was skeptical, but since it was on TV, I knew it was real. And although I've been waiting 40 years to see some actual, high definition footage of all the equipment we left on the Moon since then, I know they have other things to do with their money.
Please someone tell me if I'm being stupid here, but at 3.51 the shadow from the 'module' is going the opposite way from all other shadows in the picture. Am I missing something obvious here (which I do sometimes!) or have they made a really dumb mistake?
I liked how you showed "documented evidence that the radiation in space would've been lethal" from friggin 1959! The radiation in space wouldn't have been lethal for the period they spent there. It's a fact. They were wrong when they said that FIFTY YEARS AGO because we now know more about it. x.x
Also, none of this means anything. "NASA could have done this and photoshopped it like this" isn't proof of jack, no matter how much you wish for it to be proof of anything. This video is so stupid.
@crocfme NO there way to busy exposing all the crooked things the Bush family have done in Iraq and Afghanistan to worry about some bad acting in lion clothes on a sound stage back in 1969
I have a lunar conspiracy theory of my own. Mine is that the US government blew 20 billion dollars over 10+ years and pushed the aerospace, computing, electronics, metallurgy and bio-medicine industries of that country so far forward that they have maintained a lead which they largely hold to this day, and in the process achieved the single greatest feat of mankind and international kudos whilst making their opponents look like amateurs.
Theres your conspiracy, simple isnt it. Dickheads.
hhmm yes thanks NASA for the Walt Disney pictures youve given us over the years complete with High Definition resolution picys of white blurry blobs of the landers ??? amazing given that spy satellites here can read someone's newspaper
@ccc771>> "hhmm yes thanks NASA for the Walt Disney pictures youve given us over the years complete with High Definition resolution picys of white blurry blobs of the landers ??? amazing given that spy satellites here can read someone's newspaper "<< The spy satellites saw you reading a copy of Men Love Sheep Illustrated outside with your Mary Had a Little Lamb shorts on.
@ccc771 >>"hhmm yes thanks NASA for the Walt Disney pictures youve given us over the years complete with High Definition resolution picys of white blurry blobs of the landers ??? amazing given that spy satellites here can read someone's newspaper "<<
The spy satellites saw you reading a copy of Men Love Sheep Illustrated outside with your Mary Had a Little Lamb shorts on.
@ccc771 >>"hhmm yes thanks NASA for the Walt Disney pictures youve given us over the years complete with High Definition resolution picys of white blurry blobs of the landers ??? amazing given that spy satellites here can read someone's newspaper "<<
The spy satellites saw you reading a copy of Men Love Sheep Illustrated outside with your Mary Had a Little Lamb shorts on.
@ccc771 >>"hhmm yes thanks NASA for the Walt Disney pictures youve given us over the years complete with High Definition resolution picys of white blurry blobs of the landers ??? amazing given that spy satellites here can read someone's newspaper "<<
The spy satellites saw you reading a copy of Men Love Sheep Illustrated outside with your Mary Had a Little Lamb shorts on.
@ccc771 Spy satellites can't do that, there's a limit to how good quality you can get from a satellite, you can't even read the numbers off a license plate. It is physically impossible from space.
@ccc771 Yes but if you or NASA did photoshop it differently it would be fake and a lie. Reality has it different. Seriously, use your brain! If they DID fake it then why would it be "low resolution" (which it isn't)? If they really WANTED to then they could just pretend to take photos and create CG images that LOOK like perfect photos. But they didn't... because that would be stupid... yet that's what you wanted... which makes you stupid.
@Adkit2 oor deer... it is obviously low resolution can you make out any detail in these Photos ? but being an Apollogist and all ,you somehow manage to see great detail in them! i doubt most people would agree!
@ccc771 No. It IS good quality. Compare it to Google Earth, pictures that are taken with satellites above the planet, they should be just as good as the pictures taken by a satellite orbiting the moon, right? But oh no, the photos on google earth are really sharp, how did they do that?! Most of the major cities aren't actually photographed with the satellites, they're done with airplanes and balloons! Zoom in on some random forest and tell me if the quality is better or worse than the moon ones.
like Iraq being involved in the 9-11 event * of course they were not) the American public mostly believes that the Apollo Missions did in fact go to the moon. that is the American public that is vaguley concious of space. the minority of us who believe the missions were faked are considered nut jobs.
however, if we had actually gone to the moon you would think that a reflective American flag, large enough to be seen with a small telescope would have been left behind as proof. Nothing was left
@nootaramus "a flag would have been left behind as proof. Nothing was left"
If you had bothered to just LOOK at the pictures you would have seen that six landers casting long shadows were left, automatic ALSEP stations were left, 3 Moon Rovers were left and six flags.
So we have actually gone to the Moon. And you Sir, you are a nut job.
You tinfoil hats will never be satisfied. If the picture is bad it is fake, if it's good it's fake. What would convince you that NASA actually landed on the moon?
dude so you're basically saying they created appollo 13 just for the fun of it??? they appeared like fools for a while and may i remind you that since appolo 1 burned on the lauch pad executing ground test NASA didn't needed any bad press at that time cause let's admitte they got lucky the press did not burst at the time when they announced that a cryo stir coil failed and had nearly cost the life of 3 more americans...ok thats a hoax too? a pretty stupid and dangerous one doe...
@rushman564 ....."dude so you're basically saying they created appollo 13 just for the fun of it??? ""
The Hoaxtard explanation for the Apollo 13 mishap is that it was intended to renew the lagging public interest in the Moon landings that they were supposedly faking. That's their reasoning and they're sticking with it, dammit! lol.
Your conjecture and attempts at sarcastic humor make it pretty hard to take you seriously. Especially when your "facts" are basically a huge straw man argument. You take NASA, call them liars, alienate all their associates...and then demand evidence from them. Don't you see the redundant idiocracy in that? I guess if this is what you picked to do with your life then good luck. You REALLY need it.
Hey people, let's start a trend today. What ever is written by Nasafakedit, just ignore it completely. After all, all he is capable of doing is copy pasting the same shit, and call name like a 10 years old does. He can't prove anything, and he takes comments out of contexts. So yep, let's completely ignore him for the monkey he is.
@StraydogO2 OK braindead- explain to me how an ASCENT POD could blast off from the moon with barely any fuel,no GPS,&only a small "docking window" -SOMEHOW find the CM and CATCH UP TO IT DOING 4000MPH. LOL IMFUCKENPOSSIBLE.
No way could that ever happen.But u show me the films with sound on that 1 genius.
What did they do say-OK the CM is coming over the horizon-GET READY-GET SET...GO-BLAST OFF.lol AND THEN PRAY it can rendez-vous with a CM traveling at 4000 MPH. LOL MOONTARDS-R-RETARDS
@StraydogO2 OK braindead- explain to me how an ASCENT POD could blast off from the moon with barely any fuel,no GPS,&only a small "docking window" -SOMEHOW find the CM and CATCH UP TO IT DOING 4000MPH. LOL IMFUCKENPOSSIBLE.
No way could that ever happen.But u show me the films with sound on that 1 genius.
What did they do say-OK the CM is coming over the horizon-GET READY-GET SET...GO-BLAST OFF.lol AND THEN PRAY it can rendez-vous with a CM traveling at 4000 MPH. LOL MOONTARDS-R-RETARDS
Just picked up a great book-SECRET AGENDA by LindaHunt all about the Nazi's that sent to work in NASA & other military agencies & private contractors.Must have been great being a NAZI WAR CRIMINAL forcing SLAVES to work on their V2 Rockets & then get rewarded by the good ole USA with forgiveness of WAR CRIMES, high paying prestigious jobs with Nasa & others, and completely cleaned records of all their brutal histories.Now these sparkling clean men of purpose wouldn't lie to us about going2 moon?
Rob260259 Finished college a long time ago asshole. Just because i use my brain & am not a sheep &a parrot like you for nasa,that believes whatever is on TV. lol
Yo Robbie baby- I guess u cannot answer how the ASCENT POD made it up to 4000MPH? to dock with the CM SOMEHOW? NO ANSWERS FOR THAT NASA LIE HUH GENIUS? A flying POD with no fuel couldn't even get up to 4000MPH-nevermind link up wih a CM traveling at 4000MPH. with no GPS.What they do?READY-SET-GO? LOL RIDICULOUS NONSENSE.
@WeWentToTheMoon69 Talk about IGNORANCE-seems to me that u talk the cake win the prize.
Tell me how AN ASCENT POD(tiny little piece of shit craft)- caught up to the CM that was doing 4000MPH around the moon & SOMEHOW was able to RENDEZ-VOUS with it at 4000MPH???? USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN-IT'S IMPOSSIBLE MOONTARD-FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE.especally in 1969. lol they can't even do it NOW.Your ignorance is astounding. AND THEN, fly back 240,000 miles on FUMES. lol NOONE HAS EVER BEEN TO THE MOON DUMMY.
7:58 LYING FUCK MARK ROBINSON - they could see the markings that were made by the "DESCENT ENGINES" DISTURBING THE SOIL????? WHAT A FUCKING LYING BASTARD. Better get your story straight asshole.The LEM's made no marks at all according to you nasa fraud bastards.
What you all fail to realize, is that even if they show these landers, they could have put them up there afterwards. Hell, if I had the money I'd design a ship to go to the moon programmed to plant alien foot prints around on the surface, just because you guys would believe it after they were later on found. Just like you people believing in Big Foot and Loch Ness. The guy that took the first picture on Nessy said it was a fake on his death bed, laughed, and died. But people still believe!
What you all fail to realize, is that even if they show these landers, they could have put them up there afterwards. Hell, if I had the money I'd design a ship to go to the moon programmed to plant alien foot prints around on the surface, just because you guys would believe it after they were later on found. Just like you people believing in Big Foot and Loch Ness. The guy that took the first picture on Nessy said it was a fake on his death bed, laughed, and died. But people still believe!
These blurry LRO pics are fake. There's no shadow of the large opaque US flags in any of them! The flag's shadow though smaller than the LEM's should be just as sharp.
Were PhotoShop fakers unable work out where the flags were placed by the original 69-72 fakers?
A14's footprints 1/2 m apart made by a single astronaut would not show up at all, and would not form an unbroken line that's at least 2 metres (6 ft) wide! And where are the foot-prints and LR tracks in the pics of the other sites?
@sergemck I seriously doubt any of the flags are still intact. The A11 flag was known to have fallen at ascent. Even if the other 5 are still standing, they were made of nylon, and nylon is rapidly destroyed by UV. After 40 years of continual exposure I doubt they're anything more than dust by now.
indeed your shadows need a little work. it should be pointing the other direction, as well as the nasaphoto. Unless I mix up craters and hills, but that is hard to see at a photo. but even then the lenght of the shadow doesn't seem right.
Those little marks are easy to replicate. Earth satellites can now reveal licence plate numbers on cars. Then why a satellite cannot provide much better images of the Moon which has no atmosphere?
That's because it's not earth satellites (as seen in Google Earth) that provide the high-res photos. It's the spy planes that do this hi-res imagery. The technology used in LRO is completely different and is done at higher orbital ranges. Yet even then, you can still clearly see the lunar equipment, ALSEP, astro footpath, and afew other things in the latest LRO photos.
Even without an atmosphere, every telescope has a "diffraction limit" on its resolution depending on its size. The LRO camera is 195mm, so at 750 nm (red) the diffraction limit is 1.22 * 750nm/195mm = 4.7 microrad. At 50km that's 23cm. So the rated 50cm resolution is pretty close to this theoretical limit.
Like it or lump it, those Saturn V rockets were built, they flew they went into orbit! Whether or not they went to the moon is of some debate. Armstrong Aldrin and Collins have all been into space, but maybe they didn't walk the moon. If so what was the moon landings a cover for? Was it to put nuclear missiles into orbit to point at Russia or Vietnam?
kayaking4autism 2 months ago
It is said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and boy is yours so little. The so called tsunami of evidence you reference is nothing more than conjecture and wouldn’t fill a basin. Not one piece evidence you present is conclusive nor does it stand up to even the mildest of scrutiny. The only reason I can think as to why you persist in pedalling these ridiculous myths is that t is for personal gain of some sort , publicity , notoriety ....whatever.
Raliams 3 months ago
The best method to get away with a lie is to keep your opponent guessing and confused: ie obfuscate, better be a suspect than caught red-handed. The Pentagon own satellites which can read a newspaper from over a 100 miles up even with the Earth's atmosphere standing in the way and that's what NASA can produce as "evidence" for their Lunar landing? Why the astronots didn't leave something everlasting like a star drawn on the Lunar soil, after all they played golf and taken their rover for a spin?
Pissoffyowpunk 3 months ago
AND ... the scientists corrected you that the turnaround time was two days in one case, then you seem to forget being corrected.
Those ARE high-resolution photos. The LM stages are SMALL, get it?
I like how you used the Apollo 17 photo of Split Rock to support your notion that the LRO photos show only boulders, or nothing. You used a photo taken by Cernan on the moon to say that he wasn't there?
Seriously fucked argument there, man.
MadHighway 4 months ago
Yes, Jarrah, there are giant perfectly square "boulders" sitting there elevated by four legs above the lunar surface so that they cast long, square shadows. None of the bright points you point out cast such long, regular shadows. Those ARE boulders; the long shadows are descent stages.
In one of those photos, I can see shadows of the LM ascent stage attachment struts!
Anyway, you say the photos are doctored AND simply show boulders? Which is it?
MadHighway 4 months ago
"White SANDS"
"stReaming"
"STREAM", not screened
You transcribed your own words perfectly, yet misspelled the two scientists' words repeatedly, and you included a "garbled"--you couldn't ask him to repeat what you couldn't hear? Ok.
When they told you what you didn't want to hear--that the turnaround time was very short, even to two days--you deliver us an airy "ANYWAY."
Wow, fella. You really twist reality to suit your needs.
MadHighway 4 months ago
NASA doesnt have live lunar footage from the lro...WHY is that? My lunar footage on my channel outdoes NASA by 50 fold. Go look for yourself. We never went there and never will. NASA are photoshop experts. No live lunar footage all pictures from NASA.
saintsdola 5 months ago
to bad nasa just released high res photo's of the moon sites, including tracks made by astronauts.YOU =DEBUNKED.
MachinaSapien 5 months ago
Couldn't believe it, they just act as 5 year old children...
Jabbah757 5 months ago in playlist MoonFaker: LRO series
Another claim you imply, is that the minerals collected from the surface are different than the samples taken below the surface. There is going to be some slight differences in a case like this. "...I am not dismissing this out of reflex, I'm just putting it all in retrospect..." Or, revisionism, in your case.
MrSkunkwork100 5 months ago
Obviously NASA wanted to analyze the imagery and they then had to transfer the images from source to other formats so they can be released. There is no mystery here. And to respond to your photo-shop accusations: if it only took you that little bit of time to superimpose an image onto the image, and NASA has all of this available technology at their disposal, then why would they take so long to "clean-up" the images and release them? Your question goes both ways.
MrSkunkwork100 5 months ago
Keep the good work and dont be inhibited by people who try to hide the truth.
luckycask 5 months ago
Jay Windley's statement went over your head then as it probably does now.
Too funny, BTW Oasis sucks...geeezzz
Tweekerhead 5 months ago
So NASA can send Probes to Mars etc. but can't make a Camera capable of Taking "DECENT" pictures of the LEM!...I agree those Points of light could be Anything...
ManOfOZ2011 5 months ago
7:59 GEE i thought the descent engines DIDN'T disturb the soil. And if you could see disturbed soil then why not the base of that fake looking model LM?
AND i thought the LM engine was turned off BEFORE the LM landed on the moon? Hence there was no CRATER. All bullshit lies -all the time.
ed11561 6 months ago
WhiteJarrah, you should try to do study physics at university. If you do, you'll see all the bullshits your said...
themetroidprime 6 months ago
-Have no knowledge in science
-Claim scientists are fakers
-????
-Be a crap.
themetroidprime 6 months ago
USA has spent 60 billion dollars for a spy satellite years ago, only known more than 15 years later (Stanton Friedman statement). They have not budget to go back there ? Bullshit, must be other reason... only US growth and brainwashed since the womb believe in the nonsense that moon landings were real. And don't you know that many here that react hardly against moon hoax theories are been paid to do so, in some governamental departaments as routine of their day job? Information vs.disinformation
skullandbonesband 6 months ago
@skullandbonesband Check out this page on the moon missions being total fakes & the only ones here are the moontards that swear it was all real. lol
/watch?v=y1tqZyZVoDM
Funny how they all swear it was real & they can't even write a sentence correctly. lol Uneducated sheep that will believe anything as long as it's on TV or in newspapers. Check it out.
ed11561 6 months ago
@whiteJarrah,nice work man!u gonna end up showing to the whole world.and become a hero!
tiago198833 7 months ago
If the LRO pictures were more detailed then you, WhiteJarrah, would only complain that they "could be from the Apollo missions in the 60-70s", or that "they were edited", or that "the were from a movie", or that "it's taken from a studio", or that "you don't see enough detail", or that "the shadows looks wrong", or that "they used special effects" or ANY damn excuse you could think of.
You KNOW you would react that way.
Laurelindo 7 months ago in playlist MoonFaker: LRO series
@Laurelindo The whole idea of the NASA NAZI'S proving THEY THEMSELVES went to the moon is fucking ridiculous.
That's like asking OJ Simpson if he committed the murders. Just plain DUMB.
Funny how Nasa didn't release the photos for days. lol
ed11561 6 months ago
@ed11561 The only ones who keep up this hoax nonsense are uneducated goofballs who have no understanding of physics.
You will be very hard pressed to find a single physicist who has any doubts about the moon landings at all - some of my physics teachers back in college even used moon landing footage as examples of how things would behave in low gravity, and my physics books are full of moon landing footage and example questions involving the moon landing.
Laurelindo 6 months ago
@Laurelindo Funny how nothing but moontards pop up on films showing the moon landings were a hoax. lol
Ever hear of PROPAGANDA moron? That's how they do it dummy.
"THE AIR IS SAFE TO BREATHE." Christy Whitman That's why all the 1st responders are dying of lung cancers & various other maladies. I'll bet you believed that too. HAHAHAHA
ed11561 6 months ago
@ed11561 What the hell are you talking about now?
I thought the topic was the moon landings, and if you just think a little for once then maybe you will realize that *thousands of scientists* CAN *prepare* for the moon landings BEFORE anyone travels there.
The astronauts practiced rigorously for several years before they travelled to the moon, that's why you can see so many photos from those trainings on Google; just search for "astronauts training apollo" and you will find LOTS of pictures.
Laurelindo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ed11561 What the hell are you talking about now?
I thought the topic was the moon landings, and if you just think a little for once then maybe you will realize that *thousands of scientists* CAN *prepare* for the moon landings before anyone travels there.
The astronauts practiced rigorously for several years before they travelled to the moon, that's why you can see so many photos from those trainings on Google; just search for "astronauts training apollo" and you will find LOTS of pictures.
Laurelindo 6 months ago
these shadows are way too long. the LMs are gone . these shadows are supposed to be from the ascent launching pad. looks like they didn't take that into consideration when they made the shadows
dudeeful1 8 months ago
@dudeeful1
The shadows are long and rectangular because: the LM descent stage is about ten feet tall; it's square in shape; and the photo was taken with the sun at a very low angle (sunrise or sunset).
You didn't take THIS into account because you don't understand what you're looking at because you don't know what you're talking about because you don't have an understanding of science, optics, and engineering.
MadHighway 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@receiver69 That you are a troll.
kayokilledjack 9 months ago
@receiver69 well at least ya didn't deny it.
kayokilledjack 9 months ago
@receiver69 Oh hey a troll! fuck you. ;D
kayokilledjack 9 months ago
Keep spreading the truth. fuck a troll.
kayokilledjack 9 months ago
@receiver69 Hehe. I noticed that all 33 video responses to Jarrah's LRO, Moment of Truth video are other videos produced by Jarrah. I guess Jarrah has a split personality, responding to his own videos as if somebody else posted the video he is responding to. Creepy, ain't it?
GoneToPlaid 9 months ago
My latest video proves that the moon landings were real, starting with Apollo 11. Jarrah of course will never approve my video response.
GoneToPlaid 9 months ago
They lied about 911 so everything is a lie.
honeybees1 9 months ago
These are quite hilarious parody movies lol, you really realize how stupid the hoax theories are when they are presented this way.
I like when people make fun of conspiracy theorists.
Laurelindo 10 months ago
I don't understand. If they have all this money for the Shuttle Program, why don't they go to Mars?
yesiamawizardjonny 10 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny They are already preparing for a journey to Mars.
You have to realize that a journey to Mars is far more dangerous and complicated than a journey to the Moon - they have to make sure the astronauts won't become depressed or break down, they have to plan the landing site in order to avoid dangerous gusts, they have to grow their own food since bringing tons of conserved food is too unpractical etc etc etc.
Laurelindo 9 months ago
the lro mission was a joke , no real proof and the ass-trobrants of the world know that also
harooni22 10 months ago
jarrah, you are a king among men. lunar tuner loves black penises in his asshole. because hes a fag! hahahahahaha
MrToiletface 10 months ago
At approx. 7:40 into the video, Mark Robinson, LRO Principle investigator states that the Chinese, Japanese and Indians took images of the Apollo landing sites and he believes "you can see markings that were made maybe by the descent engine distrubing the soil"
How did they manage to take those pictures when NASA's own astronauts, who were on the moon, couldnt actually take a picture showing any soil disturbed by the descent engine?
Mark's assumptions must be incorrect?!
MrNormankool 11 months ago
@stalkervision How could Jarru debunk moon pictures individually and together? Did he use his balloon again?
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Aldren's life after the moon missions has NOTHING to do with the question if the missions were faked.
You must be real desperate now to bring that up.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
@stalkervision Completely busted by Jarru?
This is for instance the sensational picture of Apollo 12 landing site, complete with Surveyor from 1967.
How could anybody fake that? As you can see Surveyor has landed in the Surveyor crater. Pictures from Surveyor have to be consistent with this picture:
images . sciencedaily . com /2009/09/090903170011-large. j p g
(To make it work, you must remove excess spaces from the URL:)
images . sciencedaily . com /2009/09/090903170011-large. j p g
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
The pictures from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Zaguya orbiter are magnificent! And the landing sites can really be seen. Now you say they are both a "deception". So if the evidence does not suit you, then you just change the evidence.
That is cowardly and cheating. The evjdence is now in and you cannot change it. As a bonus we can even see the rover tracks on the Moon.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BjornPalmen
"That is cowardly and cheating. The evjdence is now in and you cannot change it. As a bonus we can even see the rover tracks on the Moon."
The only ones cheating are NASA... The LRO photos are Adobe photoshopped fakes.. Think about it .. Why would "footpaths" only show up in one pic, when the astros allegedly walked around at all of the sites?.. And where are the Rovers?.. The LRO photos are as fake as the rest of the cheesy looking Apollo pics.
straydog02 11 months ago
@stalkervision So you have given up your arguments about all the "faked" scientific reports and instead you revert to personal attacks against me and criticizing Buzz Aldrin's private life.
You are the one that should stop posting nonsense. The whole year you have said _nothing_ of substance.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
First I thought you were joking but now I realize that you know absolutely nothing about the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and the Zaguya mission. Jarru has been himself so thoroughly debunked that I am surprised you still think of him as an authority. He is not.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
After leaving NASA, Aldrin was assigned as the Commandant of the U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base, California. In March 1972, Aldrin retired from active duty after 21 years of service.
In 1985, Aldrin proposed the existence of a special spacecraft trajectory now known as the Aldrin cycler.
A spacecraft traveling on an Aldrin cycler trajectory would pass near the planets Earth and Mars on a regular (cyclic) basis.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
Aldrin proposes a pair of Mars cycler vehicles providing regular transport between Earth and Mars. One cycler would travel an outbound route from Earth to Mars in about five months. Another Mars cycler in a complementary trajectory would travel from Mars to Earth, also in about five months.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
@stalkervision His name is Aldrin not Aldren (!) and he is welcome to work for the WWA. He is their only contestant from the Moon. :)
If you cannot see that the Kaguya and LRO pictures are real and complementing each other you are not much of a lunar expert. On the other hand, you never were an expert. were you? And you have learned absolutely nothing.
I find your comments stupid and offensive.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
@stalkervision Kaguya and LRO are taking pictures NOW not during "the old cold war".
You speak absolute nonsense.
Not only are your comments tasteless and offensive, they are also dead wrong.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
@TheJomogogo . The LRO photos are NASA controlled, ADOBE PHOTOSHOPPED GARBAGE!.. Even if I believed Apollo astros landed on the Moon, I would be questioning why NASA still can't provide any real proof that they did.
straydog02 11 months ago
@straydog02 "can't provide any real proof that they did (land on the Moon)"
Well they actually took with them bits and pieces of the Moon that are still being analyzed.
I know you probably think they should have brought the whole Moon back with them?.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
And you ask the question: What is the matter with you?.... I will tell you what is the matter with those who's eyes are open... We can see through the lies and actually use our brains and common sense...
Time to do your own research: Try looking at Aulis.com, and take a look at the evidence presented by Jack White for a start...
Try using some critical thinking and then get back to us....
northerntruthseeker 11 months ago
OK... Here are some facts about the so called LRO exposure...
Many experts have now taken the LRO pictures of the alleged landing sites apart and have come to the conclusion that many are false and most probably photo-shopped... And done in some cases very poorly....
As Jarrah shows... You take a close look at the pixelation of each so called "lander" and you find evidence of fraudulence....
Actual photos? Please... Give your heads a shake...
northerntruthseeker 11 months ago
@northerntruthseeker
How could a "truthseeker" like you get so far from the truth? The distance between your alleged photoshop laboratories on Earth and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is some 380 000 km.
So you are lost in space with your incompetent selfmade experts --- if they exist, which I doubt very much.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
@northerntruthseeker "Many experts have..."
Those "experts" are not really experts. If they had been around during the Apollo Missions things would have been very bad indeed.
Anonymous experts should NEVER be trusted.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
No tracks under the rovers is a dead giveaway that the entire missions were frauds.
Thanks again, pt1gard, for setting the record straight...
And to those who still stick religiously to their belief that Apollo was real... I too once believed in Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny... But at some point reality does sink in!
northerntruthseeker 11 months ago
@northerntruthseeker ... nice to see the voice of reason come in, I used to try to talk basic sense to the shills, but they are getting paid and just doing their job, which is a sad on ...
"We'll know that our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is FALSE" - William Casey, CIA Director (Quote - 1981 internal staff meeting notes).
pt1gard 11 months ago
@northerntruthseeker "No tracks under the rover"
Have you EVER considered that the Moon gravity is 1/6 and the Rover is stripped and not very heavy anyway.
Actually it is a wonder that its special-made wheels leave any tracks at all.
So you once believed in Santa and the Easter Bunny. Now you believe in any fairytale about the Moon missions. Well, that kind of figures!
I never believed in Santa Claus and the Bunny. Santa cannot deliver Christmas gifts to everybody and a bunny cannot lay eggs.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
JARRU poisons everything with his misleading statements.
JARRU would be the perfect desinformation officer in World War III !
Jarru is a Finnish word which means LIAR.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
This must be the most tasteless remark in all internet. Truth's layers is about basic science, painstakingly investigating layer after layer: molecules > atoms > neutrons > quarks.... or sun > moon > solar wind....
He was saying the young generation should go on investigating physics.
You are not helping in this urgent work, while climate change comes closer. You are just interested in bottles and bullets because YOU CANNOT THINK STRAIGHT. There! I said it! It was high time somebody did!
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@scottson3 "And i have a visual photographic memory and some apollo images just look wrong to me."
Funny you sould say that because I am an expert of what people write to comment on research matters and your contrubution just doesn't look right.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
Comment removed
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
OK WJ the pictures are here. Now you can stop your childish behavior.
You are not contributing one bit - not one pixel - to lunar research.
I am impressed that LRO managed to find all those landers sitting on the moon.
Their exact locations were not known.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
isn't hubble powerful enough to see the lunar surface? why not use it? i saw the imax hubble flick and they were taking pictures inside cosmic bodies millions of miles away, so why not?
jswaffxxx 1 year ago
@jswaffxxx Hubble takes beautiful photos of massive objects very far away (Hubble's deep field images are breath-taking every time!), but it's resolution isn't fine enough to picture something that small from that close by.
419Films 1 year ago
isn't hubble powerful enough to seen the lunar surface? why not use it? i saw the imax hubble flick and they were taking pictures inside cosmic bodies millions of miles away, so why not?
jswaffxxx 1 year ago
@jswaffxxx Probably because those bodies are millions of light years across, and the lander is a few metres across?
JonnyPxN 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We know that 1 mile is about 0.83 arc seconds. The LM landers were approx 14ft in diameter (2.652e-3 miles). The LM would be 2.201e-3 arc seconds across. using Dawes' limit constant of 4.56, a telescope with a diameter of 2072" or 173 ft would be required to begin to see the LM bases from Earth. This is ignoring atmospheric haze.
londonoverground 1 year ago
Why can you see foot prints of the astronauts in Apollo 14 LRO image (according to nasa.gov), but you can't see the LRV's tracks?
And why is it the Apollo 16 LRO image shows the LM right next to a large crater; yet in the pictures taken by the astronauts the LM is not next to a large crater?
vividsign 1 year ago
@vividsign
"Why can you see foot prints of the astronauts in Apollo 14 LRO image, but you can't see the LRV's tracks?"
Because Apollo 14 did not bring a lunar rover vehicle to the Moon. Much later, Apollo 15, 16 and 17 did.
Apollo 14 astronauts had a wheelbarrow for their moon rocks. I commented on the live broadcasts from Apollo4 on Finnish TV, the moon studio in Helsingfors.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
@BjornPalmen
Here are the footprints seen with the Apollo 12 landing stage AND SURVEYOR 3 SITTING ON THE MOON SINCE 1967 WAITING TO BE RESCUED, only 100 m from the landing site.
(To make it work, you must remove excess spaces from the URL:)
images . sciencedaily . com /2009/09/090903170011-large. j p g
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
@BjornPalmen
Thanks for the information regarding Apollo 14.
vividsign 11 months ago
"LM is not next to a large crater"
How can you tell?
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
Feb 2006 : Space.com "We will image the Apollo sites and you will see the descent stages sitting on the surface," Robinson said. LROC will clearly see the overall shape of that landing hardware, but won't be able to resolve such things as the insignia on the side of the descent stage, or see the stripes on astronaut-planted flags."
Aug 2009 :Space.com "At first glance, the image from LROC appears to depict a stark lunar surface devoid of any evidence that humans were there...
ROFL
LOL
forestinfullbloom 1 year ago
am i the only one that thinks those shadows are i n wrong direction? i mean, ok those are images of the lunar artifacts....but, in every picture the side of the shadow is opposite from shadows of surroundings? am i missing something?
choodomoodo 1 year ago
@receiver69 Alas no. Although I think he is on record as saying he would apologise.
Apogee02UK 1 year ago
continued from previous comment. you can even see the mars rovers tracks in the sand. that is a track that is only 4 inches wide people, and we're photographing from so much further and through and atmosphere that is ten times thicker than the moon. i'm not saying that there is a military moon base or little green men up there, but for what ever reasons, they do NOT want us to see something up there, period.
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
personlly, i'm sure they went to the moon. WE just didn't get to go and i'm sure i know why, BUT, i do find it strange that nasa claims we can't get a good image of the hardware. if you do a search you will find pics of the mars rover. these pics were taken from and orbit 10 times further than the recent moon pics and by a much less advanced camera. it is just sickening really and insulting too. you can see the rover which is less than 10% as big as apollo. you can even see and antenna. hummm
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
@governmentcheese411 Are you joking? You cannot see the rover much less the antenna from the Mars orbiter's photos'.
Please ..if you have the link to such photos' ...post them please.
I'd love to see them, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead here is your link- // apod. nasa. gov / apod / ap061009. html
keep in mind that the wheel diameter is 4 inches. the funny thing is that as you can see. the link is a nasa link, lol. also, just google "orbital pictures of mars rover". there are more including a really good one of the lander and the rover parked next to it. i'd rather you not admit to being wrong and simply accept yourself as now better informed :) we both win...and can bring us all a bit closer to the truth.
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead btw, don't forget to remove all of the spaces and add the h t t p : to the link i gave you...
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
@governmentcheese411 I assume we've all seen those pics'.Those are real nice shots, but you can't see the antenna,camera mast shadow, not the antenna.
If I sounded uncivil before, it's because these hoax believers can be a frustrated and nasty.
I know they spent more than $220mil. more for the Mars Orbiter, and it flew around 300k altitude. LRO flew probably 50k. But hey, I can see the foot prints left on the Moon from LRO.
But no, you cannot see the antenna of the Mars rover, the shadow yes.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ok... well go with being able to see the camera mast tower. how big is it? maybe 3 ft. by ??? i'm not a hoaxer, thank god, but i am interested in the research and have uncovered more than enough to conclude we've been kept out of the loop on some things. that is obvious. are they hiding aliens or UFOs? i really doubt it, but i have personally caught a few lies myself.
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead now as far as the LRO vs MRO pics go. that is not only a 250k distance difference, but don't forget that Mars's atmosphere is several times denser than the moon. and just like our atmosphere. it severely hampers optics when compared to open space like the LRO. if you could see a foot print. than shouldn't seeing the landers be fairly easy. yet all we see is a pixel. a dot. period. and between the LRO and JAXA etc. having far better optics looking much closer and through 0 atmosphere
governmentcheese411 1 year ago
You're just mad because you country banned handguns.
bevman45 1 year ago
give us the real color of the moon and show us the back side of the moon images, we are stupid, we know come up and be open, jajaj lol yeah right, never a straight answer nasa,
acaticlopez 1 year ago
The LRO photos ended the Moon hoax debate. Now it's just fools who want attention pretending the photo's don't exist.
teddysalad65 1 year ago
@TheJomogogo
amber dot obs dot ujf-grenoble dot fr slash spip dot php ? article154
WhiteJarrah 1 year ago
@WhiteJarrah: Hi, I was actually curious about the telescope and went to the web page you suggested. The ultra high resolution imaging doesn't seem to refer to "visible light" imaging, but reconstructions from interferometric measurements of radiation from the star. So the telescope might not be able to photograph landing sites after all :(
anantharamang 1 year ago
@WhiteJarrah - It's true - You would need a telescope 600 feet in diameter to see the landing hardware on the moon. We don't have one that big. Give it up, we landed on the moon.
redshift40 1 year ago
@WhiteJarrah yeah i wouldnt responed either Thejomogogo hahaha pwned
dismanthegeeb 1 year ago
@TheJomogogo
Try looking up the Very Large Telescope in Chile. It has an angular resolution of 1miliarcsecond.
WhiteJarrah 1 year ago
@TheJomogogo
No goal posts were moved. We didn't request NASA-controlled photos of the landing sites, we repeated to personally see the landing sites through ground based telescopes. Such as the VLT which has a resolution capable of resolving objects that small. So far the guys at the VLT have had no luck finding them.
WhiteJarrah 1 year ago
@WhiteJarrah A question for you Jarrah: If an idependant telescope eventually succeeds in capturing images of the Apollo relics on the Moon's surface, what will you do? You have stated in the past that this would be acceptable proof of the reality of a manned moonlanding. Will you admit defeat on You Tube and will you apologise to the surviving astronauts and the thousands of NASA employees whom you have defamed for years now? I assure you, this is not an attack but a serious question.
Apogee02UK 1 year ago
@WhiteJarrah
7Qi8p9G5xrE
KillerNetDog 11 months ago
Comment removed
yesiamawizardjonny 11 months ago
@yesiamawizardjonny
And evidence of lunar landings.
MoronAntidote 10 months ago
We went to the Moon! People who don't believe it should be kicked in the genitals for being unpatriotic. I for one am proud that we went to the Moon with 1969 technology- on the very first try! Go team! We really schooled the Commies, didn't we? I don't know about you, but I've seen the TV footage, video footage, and I heard we even have genuine moonrocks. I rely on this filtered information to make my decision- and we went to the Moon, damnit!!!
greenfruitface 1 year ago
@greenfruitface Hmmm, I was skeptical, but I have decided you are correct. Afterall, thinking is awfully time consuming and tiresome; I'll let the TV do it for me from now on! Hurray!
pecjames 1 year ago
@pecjames You are correct, sir- don't be skeptical. That's unpatriotic. It really is. When I come home for the day, I immediately turn on my TV and digest the news. I accept what they tell me as fact. When I watched us land on the Moon in 1969, I was skeptical, but since it was on TV, I knew it was real. And although I've been waiting 40 years to see some actual, high definition footage of all the equipment we left on the Moon since then, I know they have other things to do with their money.
greenfruitface 1 year ago
Please someone tell me if I'm being stupid here, but at 3.51 the shadow from the 'module' is going the opposite way from all other shadows in the picture. Am I missing something obvious here (which I do sometimes!) or have they made a really dumb mistake?
chronicreptile 1 year ago
All hoax theory "evidence"has been debunked my man. Besides, I'm gonna' go with the integrity of the 12 badasses that walked up there.
Oh and ..BTW...You can't crash land all those reflectors up there.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
@Tweekerhead ...the brain of a hoaxtard is not a normal human brain. Your words of intelligence just bounce off them.
teddysalad65 1 year ago
@teddysalad65 You're right Bro', they have books they're tryin' to sell ya'.
Like Marshall "Mastercard" Masters and the Planet X -Nibiru hoax.
Lottsa peeps gonna fell stupid after Dec. 2012. GL
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
I liked how you showed "documented evidence that the radiation in space would've been lethal" from friggin 1959! The radiation in space wouldn't have been lethal for the period they spent there. It's a fact. They were wrong when they said that FIFTY YEARS AGO because we now know more about it. x.x
Also, none of this means anything. "NASA could have done this and photoshopped it like this" isn't proof of jack, no matter how much you wish for it to be proof of anything. This video is so stupid.
Adkit2 1 year ago
If the moon landings were faked, wouldn't wikileaks tell us about it?
crocfme 1 year ago
@crocfme NO there way to busy exposing all the crooked things the Bush family have done in Iraq and Afghanistan to worry about some bad acting in lion clothes on a sound stage back in 1969
ccc771 1 year ago
This is so full of misinformation and unaccounted facts.
:c
Boy75402 1 year ago
I have a lunar conspiracy theory of my own. Mine is that the US government blew 20 billion dollars over 10+ years and pushed the aerospace, computing, electronics, metallurgy and bio-medicine industries of that country so far forward that they have maintained a lead which they largely hold to this day, and in the process achieved the single greatest feat of mankind and international kudos whilst making their opponents look like amateurs.
Theres your conspiracy, simple isnt it. Dickheads.
DumbYankies 1 year ago
hhmm yes thanks NASA for the Walt Disney pictures youve given us over the years complete with High Definition resolution picys of white blurry blobs of the landers ??? amazing given that spy satellites here can read someone's newspaper
ccc771 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ccc771>> "hhmm yes thanks NASA for the Walt Disney pictures youve given us over the years complete with High Definition resolution picys of white blurry blobs of the landers ??? amazing given that spy satellites here can read someone's newspaper "<< The spy satellites saw you reading a copy of Men Love Sheep Illustrated outside with your Mary Had a Little Lamb shorts on.
teddysalad65 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ccc771 >>"hhmm yes thanks NASA for the Walt Disney pictures youve given us over the years complete with High Definition resolution picys of white blurry blobs of the landers ??? amazing given that spy satellites here can read someone's newspaper "<<
The spy satellites saw you reading a copy of Men Love Sheep Illustrated outside with your Mary Had a Little Lamb shorts on.
teddysalad65 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ccc771 >>"hhmm yes thanks NASA for the Walt Disney pictures youve given us over the years complete with High Definition resolution picys of white blurry blobs of the landers ??? amazing given that spy satellites here can read someone's newspaper "<<
The spy satellites saw you reading a copy of Men Love Sheep Illustrated outside with your Mary Had a Little Lamb shorts on.
teddysalad65 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ccc771 >>"hhmm yes thanks NASA for the Walt Disney pictures youve given us over the years complete with High Definition resolution picys of white blurry blobs of the landers ??? amazing given that spy satellites here can read someone's newspaper "<<
The spy satellites saw you reading a copy of Men Love Sheep Illustrated outside with your Mary Had a Little Lamb shorts on.
teddysalad65 1 year ago
@ccc771 Spy satellites can't do that, there's a limit to how good quality you can get from a satellite, you can't even read the numbers off a license plate. It is physically impossible from space.
Adkit2 1 year ago
@Adkit2 who cares the photos from NASA supposedly showing the Apollo relics are pathetic ... i could photo shop much better myself
ccc771 1 year ago
@ccc771 Yes but if you or NASA did photoshop it differently it would be fake and a lie. Reality has it different. Seriously, use your brain! If they DID fake it then why would it be "low resolution" (which it isn't)? If they really WANTED to then they could just pretend to take photos and create CG images that LOOK like perfect photos. But they didn't... because that would be stupid... yet that's what you wanted... which makes you stupid.
Adkit2 1 year ago
@Adkit2 oor deer... it is obviously low resolution can you make out any detail in these Photos ? but being an Apollogist and all ,you somehow manage to see great detail in them! i doubt most people would agree!
ccc771 1 year ago
@ccc771 No. It IS good quality. Compare it to Google Earth, pictures that are taken with satellites above the planet, they should be just as good as the pictures taken by a satellite orbiting the moon, right? But oh no, the photos on google earth are really sharp, how did they do that?! Most of the major cities aren't actually photographed with the satellites, they're done with airplanes and balloons! Zoom in on some random forest and tell me if the quality is better or worse than the moon ones.
Adkit2 1 year ago
like Iraq being involved in the 9-11 event * of course they were not) the American public mostly believes that the Apollo Missions did in fact go to the moon. that is the American public that is vaguley concious of space. the minority of us who believe the missions were faked are considered nut jobs.
however, if we had actually gone to the moon you would think that a reflective American flag, large enough to be seen with a small telescope would have been left behind as proof. Nothing was left
nootaramus 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nootaramus Iraq being involved in the 9-11 <<
9/11 had to be done with motive. sadaam and osamma had motive and a religion that fools muslims to back them up. End of story. Period.
EGMAG 1 year ago
@nootaramus "a flag would have been left behind as proof. Nothing was left"
If you had bothered to just LOOK at the pictures you would have seen that six landers casting long shadows were left, automatic ALSEP stations were left, 3 Moon Rovers were left and six flags.
So we have actually gone to the Moon. And you Sir, you are a nut job.
BjornPalmen 11 months ago
You tinfoil hats will never be satisfied. If the picture is bad it is fake, if it's good it's fake. What would convince you that NASA actually landed on the moon?
The11thgrape 1 year ago
dude so you're basically saying they created appollo 13 just for the fun of it??? they appeared like fools for a while and may i remind you that since appolo 1 burned on the lauch pad executing ground test NASA didn't needed any bad press at that time cause let's admitte they got lucky the press did not burst at the time when they announced that a cryo stir coil failed and had nearly cost the life of 3 more americans...ok thats a hoax too? a pretty stupid and dangerous one doe...
rushman564 1 year ago
@rushman564 ....."dude so you're basically saying they created appollo 13 just for the fun of it??? ""
The Hoaxtard explanation for the Apollo 13 mishap is that it was intended to renew the lagging public interest in the Moon landings that they were supposedly faking. That's their reasoning and they're sticking with it, dammit! lol.
teddysalad65 1 year ago
You live long enough, you get to hear it all. Next: the holocaust never happened and the Beatles were a myth! Lol
nordique59 1 year ago
MoonFaker: LRO, Moment Of Fail?
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
Your conjecture and attempts at sarcastic humor make it pretty hard to take you seriously. Especially when your "facts" are basically a huge straw man argument. You take NASA, call them liars, alienate all their associates...and then demand evidence from them. Don't you see the redundant idiocracy in that? I guess if this is what you picked to do with your life then good luck. You REALLY need it.
danieledwardbailey 1 year ago
TOP SECRET NEVER BEFORE SEEN VIDEO THAT NASAFAKEDIT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE!!! Nasafakedit, AKA Humanmonkeyrace, AKA Humanmonkeyrace2.
watch?v=fDXP9hNXkw4
ethanry1 1 year ago
Hey people, let's start a trend today. What ever is written by Nasafakedit, just ignore it completely. After all, all he is capable of doing is copy pasting the same shit, and call name like a 10 years old does. He can't prove anything, and he takes comments out of contexts. So yep, let's completely ignore him for the monkey he is.
Raindarsus 1 year ago
really? for sure the mineral might not be the same 10 meters deeper than on the surface. Duh, that happens even here on earth.
Raindarsus 1 year ago
@StraydogO2
stfu retard
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@StraydogO2 you are sick in the head kid
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@StraydogO2 you are scum kid
cloning youtubers accounts
propaganda moron
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@StraydogO2 OK braindead- explain to me how an ASCENT POD could blast off from the moon with barely any fuel,no GPS,&only a small "docking window" -SOMEHOW find the CM and CATCH UP TO IT DOING 4000MPH. LOL IMFUCKENPOSSIBLE.
No way could that ever happen.But u show me the films with sound on that 1 genius.
What did they do say-OK the CM is coming over the horizon-GET READY-GET SET...GO-BLAST OFF.lol AND THEN PRAY it can rendez-vous with a CM traveling at 4000 MPH. LOL MOONTARDS-R-RETARDS
cadu1995 1 year ago
Jarrah
why do u allow idiotic comments by wewenttothemoon that imbecile to be your main comments on thuis video???
You are hijacking your own videos
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@StraydogO2 OK braindead- explain to me how an ASCENT POD could blast off from the moon with barely any fuel,no GPS,&only a small "docking window" -SOMEHOW find the CM and CATCH UP TO IT DOING 4000MPH. LOL IMFUCKENPOSSIBLE.
No way could that ever happen.But u show me the films with sound on that 1 genius.
What did they do say-OK the CM is coming over the horizon-GET READY-GET SET...GO-BLAST OFF.lol AND THEN PRAY it can rendez-vous with a CM traveling at 4000 MPH. LOL MOONTARDS-R-RETARDS
ed11561 1 year ago
Just picked up a great book-SECRET AGENDA by LindaHunt all about the Nazi's that sent to work in NASA & other military agencies & private contractors.Must have been great being a NAZI WAR CRIMINAL forcing SLAVES to work on their V2 Rockets & then get rewarded by the good ole USA with forgiveness of WAR CRIMES, high paying prestigious jobs with Nasa & others, and completely cleaned records of all their brutal histories.Now these sparkling clean men of purpose wouldn't lie to us about going2 moon?
ed11561 1 year ago
@StraydogO2 another moron with no answer??? That's ok. I know we didn't go to the moon.Don't feel bad moron,.
ed11561 1 year ago
Rob260259 Finished college a long time ago asshole. Just because i use my brain & am not a sheep &a parrot like you for nasa,that believes whatever is on TV. lol
Yo Robbie baby- I guess u cannot answer how the ASCENT POD made it up to 4000MPH? to dock with the CM SOMEHOW? NO ANSWERS FOR THAT NASA LIE HUH GENIUS? A flying POD with no fuel couldn't even get up to 4000MPH-nevermind link up wih a CM traveling at 4000MPH. with no GPS.What they do?READY-SET-GO? LOL RIDICULOUS NONSENSE.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@WeWentToTheMoon69 Talk about IGNORANCE-seems to me that u talk the cake win the prize.
Tell me how AN ASCENT POD(tiny little piece of shit craft)- caught up to the CM that was doing 4000MPH around the moon & SOMEHOW was able to RENDEZ-VOUS with it at 4000MPH???? USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN-IT'S IMPOSSIBLE MOONTARD-FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE.especally in 1969. lol they can't even do it NOW.Your ignorance is astounding. AND THEN, fly back 240,000 miles on FUMES. lol NOONE HAS EVER BEEN TO THE MOON DUMMY.
cadu1995 1 year ago
@StraydogO2 $5 budget BETTER THAN ANY FUCKING VIDEO U EVER MADE ASSWIPE. OH-I'M SORRY- U HAVEN'T MADE ANY VIDEOS?? lol FUCKING LOSER
cadu1995 1 year ago
7:58 LYING FUCK MARK ROBINSON - they could see the markings that were made by the "DESCENT ENGINES" DISTURBING THE SOIL????? WHAT A FUCKING LYING BASTARD. Better get your story straight asshole.The LEM's made no marks at all according to you nasa fraud bastards.
cadu1995 1 year ago
Good idea to disable comment voting.
philnoll 1 year ago
@philnoll WE'LL START WITH YOUR WORTHLESS COMMENT. LOL
cadu1995 1 year ago
@petepigottcom it wasn't a hoax
sgh95 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What you all fail to realize, is that even if they show these landers, they could have put them up there afterwards. Hell, if I had the money I'd design a ship to go to the moon programmed to plant alien foot prints around on the surface, just because you guys would believe it after they were later on found. Just like you people believing in Big Foot and Loch Ness. The guy that took the first picture on Nessy said it was a fake on his death bed, laughed, and died. But people still believe!
BigJoeker 1 year ago
What you all fail to realize, is that even if they show these landers, they could have put them up there afterwards. Hell, if I had the money I'd design a ship to go to the moon programmed to plant alien foot prints around on the surface, just because you guys would believe it after they were later on found. Just like you people believing in Big Foot and Loch Ness. The guy that took the first picture on Nessy said it was a fake on his death bed, laughed, and died. But people still believe!
BigJoeker 1 year ago
Idiocy......your wish for something dramatic to happen in this world is overriding your commonsense.
It's a common complaint these days.......normal life doesn't seem interesting enough for some people....they have to invent a more dramatic scenario.
arfer 1 year ago
America went to the Moon, end of story .. the trouble is? they never got there using Apollo rockets though...they were movies!
CSIWEMBLEY 1 year ago
These blurry LRO pics are fake. There's no shadow of the large opaque US flags in any of them! The flag's shadow though smaller than the LEM's should be just as sharp.
Were PhotoShop fakers unable work out where the flags were placed by the original 69-72 fakers?
A14's footprints 1/2 m apart made by a single astronaut would not show up at all, and would not form an unbroken line that's at least 2 metres (6 ft) wide! And where are the foot-prints and LR tracks in the pics of the other sites?
sergemck 1 year ago
@sergemck I seriously doubt any of the flags are still intact. The A11 flag was known to have fallen at ascent. Even if the other 5 are still standing, they were made of nylon, and nylon is rapidly destroyed by UV. After 40 years of continual exposure I doubt they're anything more than dust by now.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
indeed your shadows need a little work. it should be pointing the other direction, as well as the nasaphoto. Unless I mix up craters and hills, but that is hard to see at a photo. but even then the lenght of the shadow doesn't seem right.
gijsshu 1 year ago
@stalkervision I guess you don't have much experience taking pictures outdoors on a sunny day, do you?
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@receiver69 I looked up GeoEye-1 - the stated resolution is 41 cm, virtually the same as the LRO narrow angle camera.
Nothing will *ever* convince Jarrah. Not when it means giving up all that which gives his life its meaning. Or so it would seem.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
lol abo len 1/5 who cares
Wizhix 1 year ago
this convinced me it was faked...
GreatThunder1 1 year ago
Those little marks are easy to replicate. Earth satellites can now reveal licence plate numbers on cars. Then why a satellite cannot provide much better images of the Moon which has no atmosphere?
Mike62075 2 years ago
That's because it's not earth satellites (as seen in Google Earth) that provide the high-res photos. It's the spy planes that do this hi-res imagery. The technology used in LRO is completely different and is done at higher orbital ranges. Yet even then, you can still clearly see the lunar equipment, ALSEP, astro footpath, and afew other things in the latest LRO photos.
WeWentToTheMoon69 2 years ago
Even without an atmosphere, every telescope has a "diffraction limit" on its resolution depending on its size. The LRO camera is 195mm, so at 750 nm (red) the diffraction limit is 1.22 * 750nm/195mm = 4.7 microrad. At 50km that's 23cm. So the rated 50cm resolution is pretty close to this theoretical limit.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago