The complete lack of a blast crater under the stationary lunar landed craft is a HUGE absent footprint.
It's an ENORMOUS fingerprint on a crime scene.... just as damning, just as much a proof of the Crime as the exact-parallel complete refusal of the Pentagon facade to collapse when the goat-story-reading President told US that a Boeing had hit the most-defended building in the world.
Against the conspiracy. The lunar probe Kaguya Selene, in 2008, it found all of the Apollo landing sites. website of Japans Space Agency (JAXA).
w w w . jaxa . jp / search _ e . html?cx = 009266628361095407450%3A93dsxetmy8s&co f= FORID%3A11&ie = ISO-8859-1&oe = ISO-8859-1&q = apollo&sa = Pesquisa&siteurl = w w w . jaxa . jp %2Findex _ e . html
If you're still not convinced, try typing these words on GOOGLE! (... Go and read up on the first site on the list that gives you GOOGLE!) ...... THE MOON LANDING HOAX ....
HOW TO WIN IN A COURT OF LAW ... WITHOUT A LAWYER!
If you're still not convinced, try typing these words on GOOGLE! (... Go and read up on the first site on the list that gives you GOOGLE!) ...... THE MOON LANDING HOAX ....
HOW TO WIN IN A COURT OF LAW ... WITHOUT A LAWYER!
Try typing these words on GOOGLE: ( APOLLO Research
Accepted the view, held by the Majority, named Is that NASA sent astronauts to the Moon and returned to Earth Them Safely - as reported by the space agency, as seen on TV and in the Apollo photos. )
China has published a set of impressive high resolution images of the moon, which show the moon in never-before-seen detail. And yes, evidence of the Apollo landing is in the shot.
The images are huge, at a resolution of over seven metres, and were taken by the country's Chang'e-2 moon orbiter.
The first images of their kind, they were released by the State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence (SASTIND) on Sunday Feb 5, 2012.
Only one question that no one seems to answer. How the mirrors that are on the moon surface were set?. Im talking about the mirrors that we use here on earth to measure the distance of the satelite by emiting a laser in to the moon landing sites. This issue is the only one standing for me as evidence of men on the moon. Imagine that these mirrors need to be calibrated and fixed in order to be usefull.
@alzbeto Actually, a cornercube retroreflector doesn't have to be exactly aimed or calibrated to reflect a laserbeam back in the exact direction. Sovied had reflectors on their Lunochod unmanned rovers. But, of course man has landed on Moon. There are an overwhelmingly amount of evidence for that and just a lot of misinterpreted videos and photos for the ignorant "hoax-believers" to lean on.
Landing on the moon was a US government conspiracy and will be proven a fake. The Chinese will eventually land on the moon and prove it. Now the Chinese will try to prove its a fake by looking for the flag planted on the moon.
You will find the overwhelming evidence that the sites found on Google by typing "WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON"
If you would like to continue to believe that twelve American astronauts were on the moon, for me it's okay! - EXCITED EXCITED YOU ALL! (... Especially those who have soundly duped! - AH! AH! AH! AH!)
Hello everyone from Italy, and if you can, at least try me out good!
You and all the Japanese and Russians are welcome to GO to the moon, but lets be realistic here.
Whatever you need to get off the surface of the earth, ie space station, launch pad, rocket and fuel tank back ups.. you would need the same to be in place on the moon or you are not COMING BACK, simple as that.
If anyone ever got to the moon, they would have died up there.
Yes it may now be physically possible to get there, but you cant just turn around and decide to come back it's nothing but dust.
@misternylon That's incorrect. The escape velocity for the moon is markedly lower than what it is for Earth. And once the craft is about 1/5th of the way back, it is essentially just falling back to Earth, due to gravity.
This is why such a large rocket was needed to get there, and a small one to get back. They figured it out - so can you.
@misternylon -- Fundamental laws of nature disagree with you. For instance:
To go into Earth orbit, you need to go 17,000 miles per hour.
To go into Lunar orbit, you need to go 4,000 miles per hour.
To make up the difference of 13,000 mph, you need to ALSO push with you all the FUEL that you need to make up the difference AND the fuel to push that fuel, which means an Earth-launched rocket is not 4 times the size but hundreds of times the size of a rocket launched from the moon.
@misternylon -- The LM ascent module was 10,000 pounds mass, which means it only weighed 1,600 pounds on the moon. Its engine had a thrust of 3,500 pounds, which means: (1) on Earth, it couldn't even lift its own weight but (2) on the moon, it could take off and, once in space, could accelerate an average of 1/3g acceleration. At that rate, it only had to burn for 10 minutes to reach lunar orbital velocity.
Yuri Gagarin the Russian cosmonaut made it into orbit in the sixties and that was the gauntlet thrown down ..but unfortunately the over proud gung ho macho idiot US government over egged the cake on this one.
Kodak have been famously quoted as denying that their film would ever survive the powerful magnetic field around the earth.
In 1969 the film's emulsion coating contained metals including silver, which Kodak say would have been wiped = no film, no photos.
GOING TO THE MOON IS ABOUT AS REAL AS BIN LADEN BLOWING UP THE TOWERS....ALL OF IT WAS DONE BY OUR"OWN" GOVERNMENT...WE HAVE BEEN LIED TOO FOR A LONG TIME
@mdwlcx It was not the "government" that sent men to Moon. It was the scientists and engineers. And, they knew how to do. After all, humans had flown in space for 8 years.
come on people, the NASA really sent somebody to the moon. the reason why they faked some of the videos and pictures is because they saw sentinel's prime ship on the moon in which for some reason, needs to be classified.
@MrPierrePhilippe There are very good color pictures from Apollo. Both on the lunar surface and from orbit. You just have to look for them. The original photos don't show any signs of tampering or smudging. LRO wasn't sent there to show You fine details. It was sent there to assist in making better maps of Moon. That means, photographing big areas, not small rocks or Apollo remnants. The latter is just a bonus.
@lunaticsist Ad Onor del Vero l'uomo non è ancora andato sulla Luna !
Troverete le prove schiaccianti digitando su GOOGLE " WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON "
Se invece preferite continuare a credere che dodici astronauti americani sono stati sulla Luna, fate pure così ! - CONTENTI VOI CONTENTI TUTTI !! ( ...soprattutto quelli che vi hanno sonoramente turlupinati ! - AH ! AH ! AH ! AH ! )
Ciao a tutti dalla meravigliosa PADANIA e, se potete, cercate almeno di starmi bene !
you conspiracy people are so stupid you are laughable.Can you imagine the number of people who would have to be in on it?Thousands and thousands,it could not be kept quiet.Plus we now have photo's from an orbiter last year of the stuff they left behind, the rover tracks and footprints....oh sorry they were faked as well!Idiots all of you.
@westy636R Yes, on Earth You need moisture, but not with the sharp regolith in vacuum. It sticks together when there are no air molecules between the regolith molecules.
@YDDES Man, you sure get around! Thanks for that, I'll look it up. Always happy to be corrected. I'll pm you about the other thread, I got censored on there for some reason. ;)
@glarbjerg1 i dont see why thats not possible color tv and going to the moon are two totaly diffrent things, im not saying your crazy i believe in other conspiracys just not this one
There were thousands of people, from engineers to scientists, that worked on the project, which covered many years. There are too many people involved to believe that every one of them could remain quiet about multiple landings from 1969 to 1972!
Why did the Russians keep quiet about it? They would be the frist to dispute it but they never did! The Russians would take great pride in revealing such lies from their Cold War nemesis- the fact that they DIDN'T proves the landings happened.
thats ridiculous! someone tell me why would the government fake a moon landing. and how would they fake it?!?! if they wouldve covered it up someone wouldve prooved it by now, and everyone in the country would know it
there's two many things that don't add up. for a start there's no way that they could carry enough rocket fuel to travel 250.000 mls. there's a vacuum out in deep space there would be nothing for the rocket engines to push agains't to propelle themselve's foward. also there is radiation out in deep space. the spacesuits they were wearing wouldn't protect them from it. also the flag fluttering there's no wind out in deep space. i think it was all done in area 51. what do others think.
@bav854 Before going on, please take a course in basic physics. Rockets DO NOT need anything to "push against". They DO NOT need to run their engines all the way to Moon. They just need to reach escape velocity (11.2 km/sec). Even heard of a guy named Isaac Newton? He knew that already in the 17'th century.
Now, please go and educate yourself. Knowledge is GOOD!
@bav854 You can say they "push" against their own exhaust gases. How do You think the spaceships maneuver to dock to ISS? How do they breake to leave Earth orbit and land? How do the TV-satellites maneuver to their positions out in empty space?
Every action results in a reaction. When the exhausts moves backwards, the rocket moves forward. That's VERY basic physics!
It's embarrassing to watch, when so many debunking videos are available here on youtube. explaing each of these claims being made. And the answers are SO easy to follow. So the continuation of comments here supporting this video, is just sad.
Oh, God....of COURSE we landed on the bloody moon! Hasn't anyone seen the footage of the proud American flag, flapping in the wind? They even had antigrav on the LEM....can YOU show me a blast crater from a rocket motor? Thought not. They were WAY more advanced in the sixties than now. They even took along a device to shield out those pesky stars, that may have hampered operations. Anyone who says this is phony, is an idiot. There is NO WAY the Govt would lie to us. None. Zilch. Zippo.
@RunescapeFtw571 I'm sorry: I was being sarcastic. And don't let anyone tell you it was 'vibrations' (sigh!) causing it to move like that. Check it again. A famous Nazi - can't remember who - once said that the bigger the lie, the easier it is to pull off.
As far as I'm concerned, whomever put up the money for this second rate drama, ought to get their money back. Oh, and the 'hammer and feather' thing...simply cause a vacuum around the guy, they'll drop together.
Thats Bullshit...that one foot print was always there...mistery behind but the humans never lannded on the moon all these videos are false...Look closely, u'll c different angle of shadow n wats more funny is that the usa flag on them always appear well...no crater under the landing Apollo too....The NASA is the biggest liar ever seen...
I usually hate conspiracy government BS. 9/11 , JFK, Area51...but this makes me think. For example, how can they land on the moon with a safe landing, walk around and get back in the craft, take off...BUT, why didn't they land safely on earth like they did on the moon? Why did they dive into the ocean? Anyone know?
Nasa didnt lie its just very easy to claim people havent been to moon because it was all faked.. look at the flag look theres no stars.. look at the shadows they aint parallel.. VERY EASY TO CLAIM BUT COMPARE THE WORK U NEED TO DO TO PROVE IT. u will find videos where they show u why u cant see stars why the flag is waving and so on AND THEY PROVE IT NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS PROOF. IF THEY HAD ORBITED EARTH RUSSIA WOULD HAVE MADE THE USA LOOK EXTREMELY STUPID
@hunchbacked What secrets^^? A secret worth saying nothing that the moon landing was faked^^? (answer is no) And also there were not just nasa having radio contact with the apollo there were lots of people tracking the radio so do you know how u can track a radio signal. Well anyway all people were able to track the signal which came from a possition called moon. And all physics and geology proves it as well. Does science mean anything to you? Do you know how a conspiracy is made?
What people were tracking was a transmitter in the rocket, not the real astronauts.
In the case of the pseudo exploit of Gagarin, the voice of Gagarin from space was received on earth, but people realized it was just a talking machine, for it was desynchronized with the flight, as it was always announcing the events too early, which evidenced that it was a talking machine having started too early and not the real voice of Gagarin.
@hunchbacked This is so extremely ridiculous im sorry for telling u like this. But what uve just stated is nothing but ignorant claims by people who either hate america dont know what humans are able to do or just wants to get popular with his ideas. PERIOD! They put a pendulum on the moon if u know about gravity u know the pendulum wont behave the same way on the moon like on earth. If u speed up the video the austronauts suddenly walk around incredibly fast.
@hunchbacked And also u can see a lot of videos where they get closer and finally land on the moon so it obviously cant be filmed in area 51 or what ever u guys believe how do you fake a whole moon but yea those video never appear in conspiracy videos because the only explanation for it is they really went on the moon. And how do you explain a moonrover drive around for almost an hour continously and the moon dust behaves like its in a vacuum and 1/6 gravitiy because of its route?
@hunchbacked OK cool if science means something to u: If u throw something around in an environment with less gravity and a vacuum the track and speed will be different from earth? Ok so assumed its faked u speed it up so it will "behave like it was on earth" works only for speed^^ but then u get austronauts doing very fast motions NO EXPLANATION FOR THE VACUUM AND THE TRACK DOESNT CHANGE WHICH IS PROOF ITS LESS GRAVITY THERE AND THATS BASIC HONEST AND REAL PHYSICS!!
@hunchbacked and also if u believe in science u should know the term geology. U should know what happens to any soil on earth during 4billion some years. now if u have soil which is for some billion years time on a place with no air no weather no ozon layer u can distinguish this material from earth material for a 100% sure. Now they didnt bring just a little rock back from the moon no they borught many many rocks and lunar dust. VERY REAL AND HONEST GEOLOGICAL PROOF.
It is wrong: the moon dust does not behave like it was in a vacuum and 1/6 gravity; that's only what some Apollo advocates try to make believe.
The videos with the rover are ridiculous and easily debunkable; it is easy to prove that, in some parts, the rover is not really moving, and the rover is just still on a fake background moving (I have made videos to show it).
If you want one simple proof about the Astro-Clowns was not on the Moon, just listen to Apollo archive, mark the rapid communication, mark the fast responds to Houston's call. Houston call the "Moon" the signal ran over ( Apollo 11 ) Goldstone in California - Honeysuckle Creek Australia - to the Moon.....then the responds all the way back ? just in a couple of seconds ?? that's is not possible....is it ? they were communicating just like they were a few bloks away ? it's hoaxed.
@kennjohnsen Yea a few seconds thats very accurate the signal needs about 1.5 seconds to travel from the moon to earth. Please dont let urself impress by conspirasists. All they want is attention and create hate on the government and get some money thats it. They collect information from a very BIG BIG project. Then they take out like <1% of the material. Say something about it which sounds logical to people who have no idea about the subject and thats how you get fooled...
@hunchbacked Yea pls show me the video. And also i wanna know the proof why it should not. How it should be since u are an expert in how a moonlanding is done properly u should be able to explain this to me.
@kennjohnsen All i can is give u is the facts. The problem is this seems so unreal to you because the moon seems to be so damn far away that it needs ages for anything to transmit to earth... now the interesting part is how fast does the signal travel pls tell me ure the master brain of physics so how fast is the signal traveling. you can do the math by urself and tell me how long it takes.
They picked up enough meteorites in antarctica to make a certain number of moon rocks; they just had to remove the surface and break them in several smaller moon rocks.
And about these zap pits, these little holes that they claim come from micro-meteorites, it is perfectly possible to make them with a laser.
Now, they didn't need to make as many moon rocks as they have brought back moon rocks, because most moon rocks have not be analyzed, only a little number of them, so they can be imperfect copies, like this moon rock of the dutch museum which just happened to be petrified wood.
You have to double this time, because, when an operator asks a question at houston, the question takes 1.5 second to reach the moon, and another 1.5 second for the answer of the astronaut to come back to the earth where it is recorded.; so it must be at least three seconds between a question of the operator on earth and the coming back answer of the astronaut, and it is sometimes less.
Not 3 seconds from Houston to the moon; three seconds from Houston to the moon and back from the moon to Houston; it's three seconds from Houston to Houston passing by the moon.
What are you saying, a call from Houston over California - down under - and return is 3 seconds ? I wonder who you are, are you what you say you is ? by the way how then can it be less than 3 seconds.
And those who actively defend Apollo are not experts in photography; they criticize people like David Percy and grooves, but these people have way much competence in photography than the Apollo propagandists who criticize them.
@hunchbacked No? So you personaly know David Percy and also do you personaly know people who defend Apollo and im not talking to the guy living next door saying ah its real. If David Percy was that much of an expert in photography he would not have claimed so much bullshit. He has indeed a very good eyesight but it takes more than that to be an expert in photography. Everyone can claim hes an expert but not everyone who does so is one.
@hunchbacked Yea i have very very little competence in this domain thats true. But what i have is a brain with which i can think very logic so i wonder how u are able to analyze the electronic interfaces and the computers since i assume that u only have pictures for analysation. And my knowlege of electornic interfaces is big enough to know that u cant analyze them by looking at pictures or videos.
@hunchbacked Well yes some claims really dont have to do anything witht he quality of pictures. But there are really some claims which do. And that makes me really suspicous that the hoaxers didnt do their job right. Pls tell me what video it is ive heard many claims with pictures but until now not one which was actually good.
@hunchbacked its wrong its wrong now tell me one thing. What makes u that kind of mastermind in physics and photography to be superior in knowlege compared to the rest of the world? i cant have a discussion with u about this if u actually have no clue.
And no, the photos are not copies of copies of copies, because the moon hoaxers always consider the original photos on the NASA site and not photos which have been modified on other sites.
The videos of the NASA site are ridiculous and stuffed with jokes.
@hunchbacked No its wrong. Even the pictures on the Nasa site are copies. Because they werent using digital cameras since they didnt exist. And also how do you know how many times the photos from the nasa site are copied? And well i have seen a lot of pictures in conspirasies where they dont use the most orginal quality pictures: U know the crosses which seem to dissapear behind objects... or the stone with the C. They arent using the best qulity pictures im sorry to dissapoint u.
The videos of the LM landing on the moon are also faked; they use artificial techniques, and are easily debunkable; the LM does no behave in a physical way on this videos: Often we see the LM in a horizontal position when it is close to the moon, whereas it is impossible: When the LM is close to the moon and at reduced speed, it can only be vertical and not horizontal.
@hunchbacked Mm intersting one. But u know it was the year 1969 not 2011 or something like that. U know how special effects from that time look like? Ok this statement makes me doubt ur knowlege of physics.. but anyway pls send me the link where i can see that its obviously too close to be in a horizontal position. and i hope u know about optical illusions espicaly when something 3D is converted to 2D. but yeah ill wait for ur explanation why u do have so much knowlege.
The so-called moon rocks have been made from meteorites fallen into antarctica (which have been proven to have the same characteristics as the moon rocks), and precisely Von Braun made a scientific trip to antarctica in 1967; officially it was for a different reason, but secretly it was to pick up lunar meteorites to be used to fabricate pseudo moon rocks; and about the so-called moon rocks, they easily can be made with a laser beam.
@hunchbacked Well that is wrong for several reasons: U know what happens if an object enters our atmosphere? And also do you know how hard it is to find a meteroite in antarctica. And also u need to find severals and then u still dont have the lunar dust.... and a laser beam common stop being so foolish. Do you know what a laser beam is and do you know about Isotopes in minerals? I get more and more the impression u heard that from some conspirasist and believe it without a doubt-.-
@hunchbacked Alright i answer the first one for u its liekly to find one in antarctica but again pls tell me the process to turn them into "real"(i know meteorites are also from real moonrock) moonrock and that laser thingy im very curious. Its always interesting for me to see how much information can be gathered if enough people work on something and how the outcome is better than i could have made it myself.
At the beginning of the video, we can see that the camera is shooting horizontally, or almost, which indicates that the LM is almost in a horizontal position.
The LM cannot be in a horizontal position when it is close the lunar ground and at reduced speed, because it would fall, attracted by the moon.
The LM cannot fly like a plane, with no air lift; it starts in horizontal position when it leaves the CM to reduce its important horizontal speed which allows the CM to orbit the moon, but when it is close to the moon, it must be in a vertical position, it cannot be in a horizontal position, it can't fly that way at that altitude and horizontal speed, it is not physical.
It is not a matter of how long the signal travels; I am not saying that the signal travels in 3 seconds; I am saying that, when the operator talks to the astronaut, it takes 1.5 second for his question to reach the astronaut; but the astronaut cannot answer in advance to this question without having first heard it.
So he will not emit his answer at the same time that the operator emits his question, but at the minimum 1.5 second later (supposing he understand it quite fast); and the answer of the astronaut will take another 1.5 second to go from the moon to the earth where it is recorded; so between the question of the operator on earth and the answer of the astronaut, there is not 1.5 second, bit 2*1.5=3 seconds.
Because you use the same trick as every other Moon lander, play dumb about the missing delay in the Moon communication, and you know, is the Moon communication real ??
I just say that, even if there really is a delay of 1.5 second between the earth and the moon, even is that case, there would be the double of this time between a question of the operator on earth and the coming back answer of the astronaut; the apollogists use to say that there is only a delay of 1.5 second between the two, which is wrong even if the delay of transmission between the eath and the moon is of 1.5 sec.
You try to kidding me, you don't understand what I am meaning, man, you must be playing dumb. You keep avoid/play dumb, you keep talking about between the Moon and the Earth, I don't give a damn about that time, I am talking about between Housten and Honeysuckle Creek over Goldstone California. These two times must be put together, no ?
My reason is, the signal traveled by a copper cable Houston - Goldstone, yes ? then by satellite Honeysuckle creek. How long does that take, based on my own experience calling down under, seeing the news calling around the world, seeing the BBC call to the ISS ( 8 seconds ) it does take a few seconds. And the Astro-clowns responded in a couple of seconds, that's not real.
The problem is that I only work with iron proofs and not suppositions.
Anyway, even if the time you are talking about is ignored, even if that case, it is still abnormal, so we don't need the time you are talking about to prove it is abnormal.
It is the apollogists (who are not photographic experts!) who claim he has said much bullshit because they don't even understand what he is talking about.
If an idiot says to an intelligent man he is saying bullshit, it is only his subjective view of what the intelligent man is saying and not an objective estimation of what the intelligent man is saying.
You are wrong about saying that it is not possible to analyze electronic interfaces by the schemas they give, even if the schemas don't give all the details.
Even when a schema is not fully detailed, it is still coherent and shows correct and logical associations.
It is not the case of the schemas of Apollo, they show obvious inexcusables incoherences.
I have also drawn electronic schematics; I draw the connections between the integrated circuits,and I don't draw the transistors which are inside the ICs; but my connections are coherent and logical.
The connections in the electronic schemas of Apollo are not coherent, they are illogical, erroneous, impossible.
@hunchbacked I'm far from an electronics expert but if you misunderstand the documentation the same way as you do with the AGC source and instructions then I wouldn't be so damn sure as you always seem to be. Based on that I don't trust anything you claim to know regarding the electronics anyway.
@hunchbacked Why do you assume that you know more about the instructions than anyone else? Your claims is based on computers never work this way now, therefor they never did before either, it has nothing to do with it's logical functioning. And once again, when was the last time you did a divide by zero? What do you expect, that an divide by zero exception should occur that you can catch in a try-catch statement? It's a primitive computer, get over it. It works just fine.
@hunchbacked I'm not even gonna respond to that claim again, it's an astounding claim that goes against all computer history but you hold on to it because it's an important claim for you regarding the AGC.
It seems the truth is not that important for you after all.
And what about the examples they give for the DV instruction, notably an example they give in which, when the pair A,L contains +0.0 and the register K contains +0.0, the obtained quotient in A is 0.999389648.
This is completely ridiclulous.
And once again, no other computer makes a difference between +0 and -0 (including the computers in the sixties).
@hunchbacked "If a quantity is divided into a quantity of equal magnitude, we get a
quotient of either posmax or negmax and a remainder equal to the dividend."
Posmax = maximum pos/neg quantity.
The highest octal value for 14 bits is +/-37777 for 1's complement and that equals to -0.9999389648 single precision.
Again, everything hb consider illogical has a logical explanation. Even though this command for example is emulated perfectly by yaAGC. I just rechecked the code based on this.
@hunchbacked Yeah you always call BS because you fail to understand the details. That is not the fault of the computer but yours. This is still not a question whether the AGC worked or not, it's still all about your incomprehension of the documentation and the details. The emulator works as described in the AGC documentation with the original source code. This can be proven but you're afraid to find out the truth. (See how I turned that around, funny to be on the receiving end, isn't it?)
@rawmonkno1 But if the source can be emulated, and the computers can be replicated, which they have been (at least two times with more people working on their own replications). Then the logical conclusion is that the AGC is more likely to work than your claim that it doesn't. But yeah I base my claims on nothing... these things can be checked and proven easily if you are a "computer expert" like you claim to be.
If I don't believe in Apollo, it is for very good reasons, and not because I have a mind formated like the one of a "conspiracist"; I don't believe in Apollo because I am given no reason to believe in it.
May be, but Galileo was also considered a "conspiracist" in his time, because he refused to obey to the standards of his time, because he was seeing something which was telling him that these standards were wrong, something that the monks who sentenced him, refused to take into consideration, because keeping their standards was more important to them than the truth that Galileo was trying to explain them.
Like the monks who sentenced Galileo you desperately cling to your belief and you will dismiss any evidence which might harm this belief.
That's why no Apollogist has ever accepted any piece of evidence against it, even the smallest one, and has never accepted to admit he has made a misinterpretation (unlike myself who have).
It's because the Apollo believers believe in Apollo EXACTLY the same way as the monks were believing the earth was still and the center of the universe, NO DIFFERENCE!
If the Apollo believers were able to keep some objectivity, they would accept to have some doubts, to ask themselves some questions, but they are completely unable of it; only their belief counts and nothing but their belief, and nothing must harm it, even the smallest thing.
@hunchbacked As long as you ask them to doubt based on total BS, no one will ever change their minds. Hoaxers in general accepts all the crap videos you throw at them because you guys have a trust system like a religion. Only trust people inside the group, everyone outside is a shill that want to harm your belief.
See how easy it is to make up BS about groups of people? Pfft.
@hunchbacked You seem to not even understand I had a point with that sentence. *sigh* What a complete waste of time it is to talk to you, I will try and keep that to a minimum from now on.
There also exist some more open minded people who believe that the moon landings happened, but admit there are serious problems with the footage, and that there is much chance that it has been faked in a studio on earth.
But the Apollo believers on youtube don't have this open-mindness, everything must be true for them to the last detail because of their absolute fanaticism for Apollo, and I don't hesitate to use this word.
@hunchbacked Here you once again swing your BS about how Galileo was right and the monk was afraid of the truth, then draws conclusions that I would somehow be scared for the truth. You also have that condescending act that you somehow think you are more informed than everybody else and if anyone disagree with you, they are either a shill, misinformed or scared of the truth. How appropriate! That must make it super ease to deal with people who disagree with you.
Personally, I have become a total moon hoaxer, now that I am convinced that it is the whole project, not just the footage which has been faked, and that I am also convinced that the difficulties were so great that there is no way that they could be overcome so easily, and also that the project has been led in a total amateurish way.
You have not seen a claim which was good to you because you don't want to take the pain to see what the claims are saying; you prefer to keep your dream untouched.
From all ivs seen so far.. i am so ashaimd.....
WowYaska 2 days ago
The complete lack of a blast crater under the stationary lunar landed craft is a HUGE absent footprint.
It's an ENORMOUS fingerprint on a crime scene.... just as damning, just as much a proof of the Crime as the exact-parallel complete refusal of the Pentagon facade to collapse when the goat-story-reading President told US that a Boeing had hit the most-defended building in the world.
Moon Landing was Criminally faked just as
9/11 was criminally faked.
Who is to blame each time, each crime?
MrAutobuildit 2 days ago
that chinese girl lands on my screen constantly....
MrKees66 1 week ago
BITCH NONE OF YALL KNOW CUZ YALL AINT IN THE LOOP. SORRY TO BUST ALL YALLS BUBBLES AND SUCH BUT YA DONT REALLY KNOW SHOW SHUT THE FUCK UP
dtl841984 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Image belies the theory that man has never been to the Moon BBC
/watch?v=IH7t78gvIOs
KAGUYA taking "Apollo 17 Landing Site" by Terrain Camera
/watch?v=X7D2uuAwiwY
aczjbr 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ultra Close-Up Views of the Apollo 11 Landing Site
/watch?v=ul87ieOZpaQ
LRO: New Images of Apollo Landing Sites [720p] Apollos 12,14 e 17
/watch?v=ipPI1OXVn8U&feature=related
Hubble telescope "views" Apollo 17 landing site.
/watch?v=PRItZ8rCZzA&feature=related
aczjbr 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Against the conspiracy. The lunar probe Kaguya Selene, in 2008, it found all of the Apollo landing sites. website of Japans Space Agency (JAXA).
w w w . jaxa . jp / search _ e . html?cx = 009266628361095407450%3A93dsxetmy8s&co f= FORID%3A11&ie = ISO-8859-1&oe = ISO-8859-1&q = apollo&sa = Pesquisa&siteurl = w w w . jaxa . jp %2Findex _ e . html
aczjbr 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The special agency lunar probe of India. Found just 1 landing site of the Apollo missions. but will find more
Chandrayaan-1 India - Second Moon Flyby Video From ISRO
/watch?v=2wcHwWe-404
Chandrayaan-1 India - First Moon Video released by ISRO
/watch?v=vSAih3yO6ZU
aczjbr 1 week ago
We know that these conspiracy theories are untrue because they were broadcast on Fox.
Ishcoa 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you're still not convinced, try typing these words on GOOGLE! (... Go and read up on the first site on the list that gives you GOOGLE!) ...... THE MOON LANDING HOAX ....
HOW TO WIN IN A COURT OF LAW ... WITHOUT A LAWYER!
LEARN HOW TO KEEP YOUR PRIVACY
ettoremazza7 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you're still not convinced, try typing these words on GOOGLE! (... Go and read up on the first site on the list that gives you GOOGLE!) ...... THE MOON LANDING HOAX ....
HOW TO WIN IN A COURT OF LAW ... WITHOUT A LAWYER!
LEARN HOW TO KEEP YOUR PRIVACY
ettoremazza7 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try typing these words on GOOGLE: ( APOLLO Research
Accepted the view, held by the Majority, named Is that NASA sent astronauts to the Moon and returned to Earth Them Safely - as reported by the space agency, as seen on TV and in the Apollo photos. )
ettoremazza7 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
China has published a set of impressive high resolution images of the moon, which show the moon in never-before-seen detail. And yes, evidence of the Apollo landing is in the shot.
The images are huge, at a resolution of over seven metres, and were taken by the country's Chang'e-2 moon orbiter.
The first images of their kind, they were released by the State Administration of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defence (SASTIND) on Sunday Feb 5, 2012.
Silberdachs 2 weeks ago
would be better with sutitles
harihanha 3 weeks ago
Only one question that no one seems to answer. How the mirrors that are on the moon surface were set?. Im talking about the mirrors that we use here on earth to measure the distance of the satelite by emiting a laser in to the moon landing sites. This issue is the only one standing for me as evidence of men on the moon. Imagine that these mirrors need to be calibrated and fixed in order to be usefull.
alzbeto 3 weeks ago
@alzbeto Actually, a cornercube retroreflector doesn't have to be exactly aimed or calibrated to reflect a laserbeam back in the exact direction. Sovied had reflectors on their Lunochod unmanned rovers. But, of course man has landed on Moon. There are an overwhelmingly amount of evidence for that and just a lot of misinterpreted videos and photos for the ignorant "hoax-believers" to lean on.
YDDES 2 weeks ago
Landing on the moon was a US government conspiracy and will be proven a fake. The Chinese will eventually land on the moon and prove it. Now the Chinese will try to prove its a fake by looking for the flag planted on the moon.
Mbaxtron 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To be fair the man has not yet gone to the moon!
You will find the overwhelming evidence that the sites found on Google by typing "WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON"
If you would like to continue to believe that twelve American astronauts were on the moon, for me it's okay! - EXCITED EXCITED YOU ALL! (... Especially those who have soundly duped! - AH! AH! AH! AH!)
Hello everyone from Italy, and if you can, at least try me out good!
Hector
ettoremazza7 3 weeks ago
You and all the Japanese and Russians are welcome to GO to the moon, but lets be realistic here.
Whatever you need to get off the surface of the earth, ie space station, launch pad, rocket and fuel tank back ups.. you would need the same to be in place on the moon or you are not COMING BACK, simple as that.
If anyone ever got to the moon, they would have died up there.
Yes it may now be physically possible to get there, but you cant just turn around and decide to come back it's nothing but dust.
misternylon 3 weeks ago
@misternylon That's incorrect. The escape velocity for the moon is markedly lower than what it is for Earth. And once the craft is about 1/5th of the way back, it is essentially just falling back to Earth, due to gravity.
This is why such a large rocket was needed to get there, and a small one to get back. They figured it out - so can you.
krisdevalle 3 weeks ago
@misternylon -- Fundamental laws of nature disagree with you. For instance:
To go into Earth orbit, you need to go 17,000 miles per hour.
To go into Lunar orbit, you need to go 4,000 miles per hour.
To make up the difference of 13,000 mph, you need to ALSO push with you all the FUEL that you need to make up the difference AND the fuel to push that fuel, which means an Earth-launched rocket is not 4 times the size but hundreds of times the size of a rocket launched from the moon.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
@misternylon -- The LM ascent module was 10,000 pounds mass, which means it only weighed 1,600 pounds on the moon. Its engine had a thrust of 3,500 pounds, which means: (1) on Earth, it couldn't even lift its own weight but (2) on the moon, it could take off and, once in space, could accelerate an average of 1/3g acceleration. At that rate, it only had to burn for 10 minutes to reach lunar orbital velocity.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
Yuri Gagarin the Russian cosmonaut made it into orbit in the sixties and that was the gauntlet thrown down ..but unfortunately the over proud gung ho macho idiot US government over egged the cake on this one.
Kodak have been famously quoted as denying that their film would ever survive the powerful magnetic field around the earth.
In 1969 the film's emulsion coating contained metals including silver, which Kodak say would have been wiped = no film, no photos.
misternylon 3 weeks ago
@misternylon -- Silver is not magnetic.
Seriously, I'd like to know:
Why do ALL hoax-theory promoters feel the need to LIE and make up crap stories to supposedly "prove" their argument?
prosperomage 2 weeks ago
GOING TO THE MOON IS ABOUT AS REAL AS BIN LADEN BLOWING UP THE TOWERS....ALL OF IT WAS DONE BY OUR"OWN" GOVERNMENT...WE HAVE BEEN LIED TOO FOR A LONG TIME
mdwlcx 3 weeks ago
@mdwlcx It was not the "government" that sent men to Moon. It was the scientists and engineers. And, they knew how to do. After all, humans had flown in space for 8 years.
YDDES 3 weeks ago
come on people, the NASA really sent somebody to the moon. the reason why they faked some of the videos and pictures is because they saw sentinel's prime ship on the moon in which for some reason, needs to be classified.
franklintolentino14 3 weeks ago
They put a laser reflector on the moon, to show the distance between earth and the moon. It still works as well.
Atheieye 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obama killed Osama bin ladan : fucking lie
September 11 : inside job
HIV (the cause of AIDS) : fucking scam
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: fucking lie
.
.
.
moon landing : Hoax
Thank you America for being the FAKEST COUNTRY in the world
I used to love you!
Shayanpac 3 weeks ago
There is a nuance to make here:
this does not prove they did not go to the moon.
It only proves some at least pictures and footage where faked or tampered with.
The question is why.
Many possibilities,transmission lost, etc ...
The most frightening constatation is: They choose to show us faked stuff AFTER they saw what was really there.
It's undeniable that there is a lot of smudging and offuscation on moon photos (LRO, Clementine, Apollo, etc ...) No color pictures or high res.
WHY ?
MrPierrePhilippe 4 weeks ago
@MrPierrePhilippe There are very good color pictures from Apollo. Both on the lunar surface and from orbit. You just have to look for them. The original photos don't show any signs of tampering or smudging. LRO wasn't sent there to show You fine details. It was sent there to assist in making better maps of Moon. That means, photographing big areas, not small rocks or Apollo remnants. The latter is just a bonus.
YDDES 3 weeks ago
We couldn't land that night, there wasn't a full moon!!!
etcapel 1 month ago
So we really are complete suckers...Hollywood spends all its time making fools of us all!
etcapel 1 month ago
@etcapel So, You believe that the only evidence man has landed on Moon are some films???
YDDES 4 weeks ago
@YDDES I have no idea! Jury seems to be still out on this one!
etcapel 4 weeks ago
if it is fake then that must to responsible is AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, they all lied to us all over the world
lunaticsist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lunaticsist Ad Onor del Vero l'uomo non è ancora andato sulla Luna !
Troverete le prove schiaccianti digitando su GOOGLE " WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON "
Se invece preferite continuare a credere che dodici astronauti americani sono stati sulla Luna, fate pure così ! - CONTENTI VOI CONTENTI TUTTI !! ( ...soprattutto quelli che vi hanno sonoramente turlupinati ! - AH ! AH ! AH ! AH ! )
Ciao a tutti dalla meravigliosa PADANIA e, se potete, cercate almeno di starmi bene !
Ettore
ettoremazza7 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Coronal Mass Ejection is the smoking gun that exposes NASA lies.
NASA was very lucky between Dec. 1968 - Dec. 1972.
We could NOT detect life threatening CME until DEC. 1971.
Only two FAKED flights were made to the moon between Dec. 1971-72.
And after December 1972 NASA knew the gig was up.
NASA has not put a human beyond the safe zone (about 400 miles) in 40 years.
So the astroNOTs were very very very lucky, not one wanker came back complaining of headaches or any kind of radiation sickness?
islandbuoy4 1 month ago
you conspiracy people are so stupid you are laughable.Can you imagine the number of people who would have to be in on it?Thousands and thousands,it could not be kept quiet.Plus we now have photo's from an orbiter last year of the stuff they left behind, the rover tracks and footprints....oh sorry they were faked as well!Idiots all of you.
hartforp 1 month ago
@hartforp You need moisture to form footprints. And for liquids you need atmospheric pressure.
westy636R 1 month ago
@westy636R Yes, on Earth You need moisture, but not with the sharp regolith in vacuum. It sticks together when there are no air molecules between the regolith molecules.
YDDES 1 month ago
@YDDES Man, you sure get around! Thanks for that, I'll look it up. Always happy to be corrected. I'll pm you about the other thread, I got censored on there for some reason. ;)
westy636R 1 month ago
@westy636R Well, that's at least what I've heard/read about the regolith. haven't toched it myself...
YDDES 1 month ago
Comment removed
hartforp 1 month ago
Take a look at this: /watch?v=MunPi3ifqpw
TheBatushko 1 month ago
you're all just crazy i think we did, you cant do anything now a days without having it challenged by conspiracys, jeez
ColAvsfan04 1 month ago
@ColAvsfan04 ofc you did not - usa all time wan't to be the best, all know it... but we can let you have it... if you wan't to cheat
you could get to the moon.... before the color televesin was born.. come on get real.
glarbjerg1 1 month ago
@glarbjerg1 TV*
glarbjerg1 1 month ago
@glarbjerg1 i dont see why thats not possible color tv and going to the moon are two totaly diffrent things, im not saying your crazy i believe in other conspiracys just not this one
ColAvsfan04 1 month ago
@glarbjerg1 No color TV in 1969? You should try do learn some technology history...
In USA it was introduced in 1953 and in Europe in 1967.
What has color TV got to do with building large rockets and spacecraft? Explain please.
YDDES 1 month ago
There were thousands of people, from engineers to scientists, that worked on the project, which covered many years. There are too many people involved to believe that every one of them could remain quiet about multiple landings from 1969 to 1972!
Why did the Russians keep quiet about it? They would be the frist to dispute it but they never did! The Russians would take great pride in revealing such lies from their Cold War nemesis- the fact that they DIDN'T proves the landings happened.
smithwriter69 1 month ago 2
thats ridiculous! someone tell me why would the government fake a moon landing. and how would they fake it?!?! if they wouldve covered it up someone wouldve prooved it by now, and everyone in the country would know it
guitarzan322 1 month ago
there's two many things that don't add up. for a start there's no way that they could carry enough rocket fuel to travel 250.000 mls. there's a vacuum out in deep space there would be nothing for the rocket engines to push agains't to propelle themselve's foward. also there is radiation out in deep space. the spacesuits they were wearing wouldn't protect them from it. also the flag fluttering there's no wind out in deep space. i think it was all done in area 51. what do others think.
bav854 1 month ago
@bav854 Before going on, please take a course in basic physics. Rockets DO NOT need anything to "push against". They DO NOT need to run their engines all the way to Moon. They just need to reach escape velocity (11.2 km/sec). Even heard of a guy named Isaac Newton? He knew that already in the 17'th century.
Now, please go and educate yourself. Knowledge is GOOD!
Good luck!
YDDES 1 month ago
@YDDES if as you say rockets don't need anything to push agains't how did they take off from the launch pad. without thrust they wouldn't move.
bav854 1 month ago
@bav854 You can say they "push" against their own exhaust gases. How do You think the spaceships maneuver to dock to ISS? How do they breake to leave Earth orbit and land? How do the TV-satellites maneuver to their positions out in empty space?
Every action results in a reaction. When the exhausts moves backwards, the rocket moves forward. That's VERY basic physics!
YDDES 1 month ago
It's embarrassing to watch, when so many debunking videos are available here on youtube. explaing each of these claims being made. And the answers are SO easy to follow. So the continuation of comments here supporting this video, is just sad.
HKragh 1 month ago
Oh, God....of COURSE we landed on the bloody moon! Hasn't anyone seen the footage of the proud American flag, flapping in the wind? They even had antigrav on the LEM....can YOU show me a blast crater from a rocket motor? Thought not. They were WAY more advanced in the sixties than now. They even took along a device to shield out those pesky stars, that may have hampered operations. Anyone who says this is phony, is an idiot. There is NO WAY the Govt would lie to us. None. Zilch. Zippo.
immensecat 1 month ago
@immensecat wind on the moon?
RunescapeFtw571 1 month ago
@RunescapeFtw571 I'm sorry: I was being sarcastic. And don't let anyone tell you it was 'vibrations' (sigh!) causing it to move like that. Check it again. A famous Nazi - can't remember who - once said that the bigger the lie, the easier it is to pull off.
As far as I'm concerned, whomever put up the money for this second rate drama, ought to get their money back. Oh, and the 'hammer and feather' thing...simply cause a vacuum around the guy, they'll drop together.
immensecat 1 month ago
if man landed before when ther is no techonology..why cant they try now,.....
vigneshtl001 1 month ago
yes they are landed on my tick stick ...
TheRobyshark 1 month ago
Moon hoax nonsense - end of story:
.
watch?v=fMrB857Oaxw&feature=related
.
Rob260259 1 month ago
Comment removed
adib1695 1 month ago
Thats Bullshit...that one foot print was always there...mistery behind but the humans never lannded on the moon all these videos are false...Look closely, u'll c different angle of shadow n wats more funny is that the usa flag on them always appear well...no crater under the landing Apollo too....The NASA is the biggest liar ever seen...
TheBisouxnours 1 month ago
@TheBisouxnours
Try to find one (1) ounce of evidence for your outrageous theory.
Rob260259 1 month ago
IT'S ALL A LIE
THEY REALLY LANDED ON MARS
hellofraaance 1 month ago
WOULD IT NOT BE SIMPLE TO GO BACK TO THE MOON AND SEE WHETHER THE FLAG IS STILL THERE AND THE FOOTPRINTS AS WELL
TheWillnecker 2 months ago
@TheWillnecker
Well then, maybe the Moon critics should get together and shake up a few million dollars to send a probe to the Moon and investigate.
kennjohnsen 1 month ago
I usually hate conspiracy government BS. 9/11 , JFK, Area51...but this makes me think. For example, how can they land on the moon with a safe landing, walk around and get back in the craft, take off...BUT, why didn't they land safely on earth like they did on the moon? Why did they dive into the ocean? Anyone know?
mzeppa77 2 months ago
@mzeppa77 Because theres air on the earth which allowes u to use parachutes. So you can save a lot of fuel and weight and costs.
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"DISNEY BULLSHIT", here endeth the lesson, well done Hunch.
NASAvsPETE1 2 months ago
Go to......MoonFAKER: LRO at 25km?.......LRO debunked....can you debunk his debunking ?
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
Nasa = lyers
yourmajezty 2 months ago
this is the dumbest thing i have ever seen.....i bet the holocaust didn't happen either
GMenSB42 2 months ago
wanna see the fact, just watch Transformers DOTM..
tukaibilam 2 months ago
Nasa didnt lie its just very easy to claim people havent been to moon because it was all faked.. look at the flag look theres no stars.. look at the shadows they aint parallel.. VERY EASY TO CLAIM BUT COMPARE THE WORK U NEED TO DO TO PROVE IT. u will find videos where they show u why u cant see stars why the flag is waving and so on AND THEY PROVE IT NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS PROOF. IF THEY HAD ORBITED EARTH RUSSIA WOULD HAVE MADE THE USA LOOK EXTREMELY STUPID
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
No, because the Russians also had dirty secrets to hide that the Americans knew about.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked What secrets^^? A secret worth saying nothing that the moon landing was faked^^? (answer is no) And also there were not just nasa having radio contact with the apollo there were lots of people tracking the radio so do you know how u can track a radio signal. Well anyway all people were able to track the signal which came from a possition called moon. And all physics and geology proves it as well. Does science mean anything to you? Do you know how a conspiracy is made?
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
Comment removed
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
What people were tracking was a transmitter in the rocket, not the real astronauts.
In the case of the pseudo exploit of Gagarin, the voice of Gagarin from space was received on earth, but people realized it was just a talking machine, for it was desynchronized with the flight, as it was always announcing the events too early, which evidenced that it was a talking machine having started too early and not the real voice of Gagarin.
the NASA just repeated the trick.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked This is so extremely ridiculous im sorry for telling u like this. But what uve just stated is nothing but ignorant claims by people who either hate america dont know what humans are able to do or just wants to get popular with his ideas. PERIOD! They put a pendulum on the moon if u know about gravity u know the pendulum wont behave the same way on the moon like on earth. If u speed up the video the austronauts suddenly walk around incredibly fast.
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@hunchbacked And also u can see a lot of videos where they get closer and finally land on the moon so it obviously cant be filmed in area 51 or what ever u guys believe how do you fake a whole moon but yea those video never appear in conspiracy videos because the only explanation for it is they really went on the moon. And how do you explain a moonrover drive around for almost an hour continously and the moon dust behaves like its in a vacuum and 1/6 gravitiy because of its route?
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
yes, science means enormously to me, when it is honest real science, and not when it is a lame comedy which is purposed to fool people.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked OK cool if science means something to u: If u throw something around in an environment with less gravity and a vacuum the track and speed will be different from earth? Ok so assumed its faked u speed it up so it will "behave like it was on earth" works only for speed^^ but then u get austronauts doing very fast motions NO EXPLANATION FOR THE VACUUM AND THE TRACK DOESNT CHANGE WHICH IS PROOF ITS LESS GRAVITY THERE AND THATS BASIC HONEST AND REAL PHYSICS!!
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@hunchbacked and also if u believe in science u should know the term geology. U should know what happens to any soil on earth during 4billion some years. now if u have soil which is for some billion years time on a place with no air no weather no ozon layer u can distinguish this material from earth material for a 100% sure. Now they didnt bring just a little rock back from the moon no they borught many many rocks and lunar dust. VERY REAL AND HONEST GEOLOGICAL PROOF.
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
It is wrong: the moon dust does not behave like it was in a vacuum and 1/6 gravity; that's only what some Apollo advocates try to make believe.
The videos with the rover are ridiculous and easily debunkable; it is easy to prove that, in some parts, the rover is not really moving, and the rover is just still on a fake background moving (I have made videos to show it).
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
If you want one simple proof about the Astro-Clowns was not on the Moon, just listen to Apollo archive, mark the rapid communication, mark the fast responds to Houston's call. Houston call the "Moon" the signal ran over ( Apollo 11 ) Goldstone in California - Honeysuckle Creek Australia - to the Moon.....then the responds all the way back ? just in a couple of seconds ?? that's is not possible....is it ? they were communicating just like they were a few bloks away ? it's hoaxed.
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
@kennjohnsen Yea a few seconds thats very accurate the signal needs about 1.5 seconds to travel from the moon to earth. Please dont let urself impress by conspirasists. All they want is attention and create hate on the government and get some money thats it. They collect information from a very BIG BIG project. Then they take out like <1% of the material. Say something about it which sounds logical to people who have no idea about the subject and thats how you get fooled...
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
On several videos, it is visible that the LM is making a sudden rotation, going from a horizontal position on a vertical one; it should not.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked Yea pls show me the video. And also i wanna know the proof why it should not. How it should be since u are an expert in how a moonlanding is done properly u should be able to explain this to me.
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
I,5 seconds, come up with something else than playing dumb.
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
@kennjohnsen All i can is give u is the facts. The problem is this seems so unreal to you because the moon seems to be so damn far away that it needs ages for anything to transmit to earth... now the interesting part is how fast does the signal travel pls tell me ure the master brain of physics so how fast is the signal traveling. you can do the math by urself and tell me how long it takes.
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
They picked up enough meteorites in antarctica to make a certain number of moon rocks; they just had to remove the surface and break them in several smaller moon rocks.
And about these zap pits, these little holes that they claim come from micro-meteorites, it is perfectly possible to make them with a laser.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
Now, they didn't need to make as many moon rocks as they have brought back moon rocks, because most moon rocks have not be analyzed, only a little number of them, so they can be imperfect copies, like this moon rock of the dutch museum which just happened to be petrified wood.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
You have to double this time, because, when an operator asks a question at houston, the question takes 1.5 second to reach the moon, and another 1.5 second for the answer of the astronaut to come back to the earth where it is recorded.; so it must be at least three seconds between a question of the operator on earth and the coming back answer of the astronaut, and it is sometimes less.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
3 seconds from Houston the Moon ?? and sometimes less ??
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
@kennjohnsen
Not 3 seconds from Houston to the moon; three seconds from Houston to the moon and back from the moon to Houston; it's three seconds from Houston to Houston passing by the moon.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
What are you saying, a call from Houston over California - down under - and return is 3 seconds ? I wonder who you are, are you what you say you is ? by the way how then can it be less than 3 seconds.
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
And those who actively defend Apollo are not experts in photography; they criticize people like David Percy and grooves, but these people have way much competence in photography than the Apollo propagandists who criticize them.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked No? So you personaly know David Percy and also do you personaly know people who defend Apollo and im not talking to the guy living next door saying ah its real. If David Percy was that much of an expert in photography he would not have claimed so much bullshit. He has indeed a very good eyesight but it takes more than that to be an expert in photography. Everyone can claim hes an expert but not everyone who does so is one.
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
I also have analyzed the electronic interfaces and the computer, and found they were wrong.
I really have comptetence for analyzing them.
Among those who actively defend Apollo, none has my competences in these domains.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked Yea i have very very little competence in this domain thats true. But what i have is a brain with which i can think very logic so i wonder how u are able to analyze the electronic interfaces and the computers since i assume that u only have pictures for analysation. And my knowlege of electornic interfaces is big enough to know that u cant analyze them by looking at pictures or videos.
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
And it is not just a question of quality of picture.
There are obvious incoherences which have nothing to do with the quality of photos, like obvious errors of perspective.
Many photos also play with the photographer's shadow like I have shown in a video.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked Well yes some claims really dont have to do anything witht he quality of pictures. But there are really some claims which do. And that makes me really suspicous that the hoaxers didnt do their job right. Pls tell me what video it is ive heard many claims with pictures but until now not one which was actually good.
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@hunchbacked its wrong its wrong now tell me one thing. What makes u that kind of mastermind in physics and photography to be superior in knowlege compared to the rest of the world? i cant have a discussion with u about this if u actually have no clue.
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
And no, the photos are not copies of copies of copies, because the moon hoaxers always consider the original photos on the NASA site and not photos which have been modified on other sites.
The videos of the NASA site are ridiculous and stuffed with jokes.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked No its wrong. Even the pictures on the Nasa site are copies. Because they werent using digital cameras since they didnt exist. And also how do you know how many times the photos from the nasa site are copied? And well i have seen a lot of pictures in conspirasies where they dont use the most orginal quality pictures: U know the crosses which seem to dissapear behind objects... or the stone with the C. They arent using the best qulity pictures im sorry to dissapoint u.
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
The videos of the LM landing on the moon are also faked; they use artificial techniques, and are easily debunkable; the LM does no behave in a physical way on this videos: Often we see the LM in a horizontal position when it is close to the moon, whereas it is impossible: When the LM is close to the moon and at reduced speed, it can only be vertical and not horizontal.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked Mm intersting one. But u know it was the year 1969 not 2011 or something like that. U know how special effects from that time look like? Ok this statement makes me doubt ur knowlege of physics.. but anyway pls send me the link where i can see that its obviously too close to be in a horizontal position. and i hope u know about optical illusions espicaly when something 3D is converted to 2D. but yeah ill wait for ur explanation why u do have so much knowlege.
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
The so-called moon rocks have been made from meteorites fallen into antarctica (which have been proven to have the same characteristics as the moon rocks), and precisely Von Braun made a scientific trip to antarctica in 1967; officially it was for a different reason, but secretly it was to pick up lunar meteorites to be used to fabricate pseudo moon rocks; and about the so-called moon rocks, they easily can be made with a laser beam.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked Well that is wrong for several reasons: U know what happens if an object enters our atmosphere? And also do you know how hard it is to find a meteroite in antarctica. And also u need to find severals and then u still dont have the lunar dust.... and a laser beam common stop being so foolish. Do you know what a laser beam is and do you know about Isotopes in minerals? I get more and more the impression u heard that from some conspirasist and believe it without a doubt-.-
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@hunchbacked Alright i answer the first one for u its liekly to find one in antarctica but again pls tell me the process to turn them into "real"(i know meteorites are also from real moonrock) moonrock and that laser thingy im very curious. Its always interesting for me to see how much information can be gathered if enough people work on something and how the outcome is better than i could have made it myself.
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
I have even proven that the LM has been turned of a half turn in Apollo 17.
Here is the video.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked Here?
o0Manfi0o 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
Google "Apollo 17 video libray", and select the first video "Landing at Taurus-Littrow".
The way the camera views the moon is incoherent.
The camera is on top of the LM, and almost points toward the ground when the LM is laying on the ground.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
At the beginning of the video, we can see that the camera is shooting horizontally, or almost, which indicates that the LM is almost in a horizontal position.
The LM cannot be in a horizontal position when it is close the lunar ground and at reduced speed, because it would fall, attracted by the moon.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
The LM cannot fly like a plane, with no air lift; it starts in horizontal position when it leaves the CM to reduce its important horizontal speed which allows the CM to orbit the moon, but when it is close to the moon, it must be in a vertical position, it cannot be in a horizontal position, it can't fly that way at that altitude and horizontal speed, it is not physical.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
It is not a matter of how long the signal travels; I am not saying that the signal travels in 3 seconds; I am saying that, when the operator talks to the astronaut, it takes 1.5 second for his question to reach the astronaut; but the astronaut cannot answer in advance to this question without having first heard it.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
Comment removed
hunchbacked 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@o0Manfi0o
So he will not emit his answer at the same time that the operator emits his question, but at the minimum 1.5 second later (supposing he understand it quite fast); and the answer of the astronaut will take another 1.5 second to go from the moon to the earth where it is recorded; so between the question of the operator on earth and the answer of the astronaut, there is not 1.5 second, bit 2*1.5=3 seconds.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
3 seconds between Moon and Earth, but how about between Houston - Goldstone - Honeysuckle Creek ? you are a fake.
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
@kennjohnsen
And why am I a fake, what the hell are you talking about?
Explain yourself!
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
Because you use the same trick as every other Moon lander, play dumb about the missing delay in the Moon communication, and you know, is the Moon communication real ??
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
@kennjohnsen
I don't play dumb.
I just say that, even if there really is a delay of 1.5 second between the earth and the moon, even is that case, there would be the double of this time between a question of the operator on earth and the coming back answer of the astronaut; the apollogists use to say that there is only a delay of 1.5 second between the two, which is wrong even if the delay of transmission between the eath and the moon is of 1.5 sec.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
You responds to my post is playing dumb, you avoid my point by playing dumb.
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
@kennjohnsen
I don't play dumb, I'm asking you what you are meaning.
If I haven't understood what you were meaning, then explain me what you mean.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
You try to kidding me, you don't understand what I am meaning, man, you must be playing dumb. You keep avoid/play dumb, you keep talking about between the Moon and the Earth, I don't give a damn about that time, I am talking about between Housten and Honeysuckle Creek over Goldstone California. These two times must be put together, no ?
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
Comment removed
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
Why do you send me a comment, and delete it before it hits this channel ? you try to be smart.
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
@kennjohnsen
Normally the time between Houston and Honeysuckle Creek is short as they are close; do you have a reason to think that this time would be long?
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
My reason is, the signal traveled by a copper cable Houston - Goldstone, yes ? then by satellite Honeysuckle creek. How long does that take, based on my own experience calling down under, seeing the news calling around the world, seeing the BBC call to the ISS ( 8 seconds ) it does take a few seconds. And the Astro-clowns responded in a couple of seconds, that's not real.
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
@kennjohnsen
It's possible, but we have no proof of it.
It all depends on how it was done.
The problem is that I only work with iron proofs and not suppositions.
Anyway, even if the time you are talking about is ignored, even if that case, it is still abnormal, so we don't need the time you are talking about to prove it is abnormal.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked
I see.
kennjohnsen 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
It is the apollogists (who are not photographic experts!) who claim he has said much bullshit because they don't even understand what he is talking about.
If an idiot says to an intelligent man he is saying bullshit, it is only his subjective view of what the intelligent man is saying and not an objective estimation of what the intelligent man is saying.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
You are wrong about saying that it is not possible to analyze electronic interfaces by the schemas they give, even if the schemas don't give all the details.
Even when a schema is not fully detailed, it is still coherent and shows correct and logical associations.
It is not the case of the schemas of Apollo, they show obvious inexcusables incoherences.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
I have also drawn electronic schematics; I draw the connections between the integrated circuits,and I don't draw the transistors which are inside the ICs; but my connections are coherent and logical.
The connections in the electronic schemas of Apollo are not coherent, they are illogical, erroneous, impossible.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked I'm far from an electronics expert but if you misunderstand the documentation the same way as you do with the AGC source and instructions then I wouldn't be so damn sure as you always seem to be. Based on that I don't trust anything you claim to know regarding the electronics anyway.
rawmonkno1 2 months ago
@rawmonkno1
There are more problems than you think with the instructions of the AGC.
Notably instructions which are practically unusable because they put something into the acculumator that the user can't choose.
The conditional branch instructions are unsufficient and work in a ridiculous way (and the example which is given for one is ridiculous).
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked Why do you assume that you know more about the instructions than anyone else? Your claims is based on computers never work this way now, therefor they never did before either, it has nothing to do with it's logical functioning. And once again, when was the last time you did a divide by zero? What do you expect, that an divide by zero exception should occur that you can catch in a try-catch statement? It's a primitive computer, get over it. It works just fine.
rawmonkno1 2 months ago
@rawmonkno1
No, they don't work this way not only now, but also in the past.
My knowledge of computers dates from the seventies.
The philosophy of the computers has not changed; what has changed is the technology which has allowed to make them more powerful with a smaller size.
But the basic principles have not changed.
A computer was no more making a distinction between +0 and -0 in the sixties than now.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked I'm not even gonna respond to that claim again, it's an astounding claim that goes against all computer history but you hold on to it because it's an important claim for you regarding the AGC.
It seems the truth is not that important for you after all.
rawmonkno1 2 months ago
@rawmonkno1
No my claim does not go against computer history, computer histoty has nothing to do with Apollo, I know it much better than you.
The truth is extremely important for me, but it seems that for you Apollo is more important than the truth; for me it is the converse.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@rawmonkno1
The computer of Apollo does not only break the standards of now, but also those of the sixties.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@rawmonkno1
And what about the examples they give for the DV instruction, notably an example they give in which, when the pair A,L contains +0.0 and the register K contains +0.0, the obtained quotient in A is 0.999389648.
This is completely ridiclulous.
And once again, no other computer makes a difference between +0 and -0 (including the computers in the sixties).
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked "And once again, no other computer makes a difference between +0 and -0 (including the computers in the sixties)."
Your lack of knowledge is baffling.
rawmonkno1 2 months ago
@hunchbacked "If a quantity is divided into a quantity of equal magnitude, we get a
quotient of either posmax or negmax and a remainder equal to the dividend."
Posmax = maximum pos/neg quantity.
The highest octal value for 14 bits is +/-37777 for 1's complement and that equals to -0.9999389648 single precision.
Again, everything hb consider illogical has a logical explanation. Even though this command for example is emulated perfectly by yaAGC. I just rechecked the code based on this.
rawmonkno1 2 months ago
@rawmonkno1
It is Apollo logic; the problem is that Apollo is the only one in the world to use that strange logic, never used ever before or after.
I call that total bullshit.
You are ready to swallow it because you absolutely want to believe in Apollo.
I could believe in Apollo if Apollo was making sense, but I won't force myself to believe in Apollo if Apollo does not make the least sense.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked Yeah you always call BS because you fail to understand the details. That is not the fault of the computer but yours. This is still not a question whether the AGC worked or not, it's still all about your incomprehension of the documentation and the details. The emulator works as described in the AGC documentation with the original source code. This can be proven but you're afraid to find out the truth. (See how I turned that around, funny to be on the receiving end, isn't it?)
rawmonkno1 2 months ago
@rawmonkno1 But if the source can be emulated, and the computers can be replicated, which they have been (at least two times with more people working on their own replications). Then the logical conclusion is that the AGC is more likely to work than your claim that it doesn't. But yeah I base my claims on nothing... these things can be checked and proven easily if you are a "computer expert" like you claim to be.
rawmonkno1 2 months ago
@rawmonkno1
The way the tasks were managed in the computer makes no sense.
I am about to post a video to show how absurd it was.
And the so-called core rope memory is a joke; it could not work.
I see nothing which makes sense in Apollo, although your blinders prevent you from seeing the problems.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@rawmonkno1
If I don't believe in Apollo, it is for very good reasons, and not because I have a mind formated like the one of a "conspiracist"; I don't believe in Apollo because I am given no reason to believe in it.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked You talk like one and behave like one, then you are one.
rawmonkno1 2 months ago
@rawmonkno1
May be, but Galileo was also considered a "conspiracist" in his time, because he refused to obey to the standards of his time, because he was seeing something which was telling him that these standards were wrong, something that the monks who sentenced him, refused to take into consideration, because keeping their standards was more important to them than the truth that Galileo was trying to explain them.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@rawmonkno1
Like the monks who sentenced Galileo you desperately cling to your belief and you will dismiss any evidence which might harm this belief.
That's why no Apollogist has ever accepted any piece of evidence against it, even the smallest one, and has never accepted to admit he has made a misinterpretation (unlike myself who have).
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@rawmonkno1
It's because the Apollo believers believe in Apollo EXACTLY the same way as the monks were believing the earth was still and the center of the universe, NO DIFFERENCE!
If the Apollo believers were able to keep some objectivity, they would accept to have some doubts, to ask themselves some questions, but they are completely unable of it; only their belief counts and nothing but their belief, and nothing must harm it, even the smallest thing.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked As long as you ask them to doubt based on total BS, no one will ever change their minds. Hoaxers in general accepts all the crap videos you throw at them because you guys have a trust system like a religion. Only trust people inside the group, everyone outside is a shill that want to harm your belief.
See how easy it is to make up BS about groups of people? Pfft.
rawmonkno1 2 months ago
@rawmonkno1
I don't have a trust system like a religion, it is the Apollo believers who have one, definitively.
The Apollo believers believe in Apollo exactly LIKE IN A RELIGION!
There is a striking resemblance between creationists and Apollo believers.
Apollo is a GOD for them, no doubt!
Apollo is a pagan religion.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked You seem to not even understand I had a point with that sentence. *sigh* What a complete waste of time it is to talk to you, I will try and keep that to a minimum from now on.
rawmonkno1 2 months ago
@rawmonkno1
There also exist some more open minded people who believe that the moon landings happened, but admit there are serious problems with the footage, and that there is much chance that it has been faked in a studio on earth.
But the Apollo believers on youtube don't have this open-mindness, everything must be true for them to the last detail because of their absolute fanaticism for Apollo, and I don't hesitate to use this word.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@hunchbacked Here you once again swing your BS about how Galileo was right and the monk was afraid of the truth, then draws conclusions that I would somehow be scared for the truth. You also have that condescending act that you somehow think you are more informed than everybody else and if anyone disagree with you, they are either a shill, misinformed or scared of the truth. How appropriate! That must make it super ease to deal with people who disagree with you.
rawmonkno1 2 months ago
@rawmonkno1
Personally, I have become a total moon hoaxer, now that I am convinced that it is the whole project, not just the footage which has been faked, and that I am also convinced that the difficulties were so great that there is no way that they could be overcome so easily, and also that the project has been led in a total amateurish way.
hunchbacked 2 months ago
@o0Manfi0o
You have not seen a claim which was good to you because you don't want to take the pain to see what the claims are saying; you prefer to keep your dream untouched.