I'm staying open minded......maybe they did go, maybe they didn't.......if they did, why have we never been back?...Why has the shuttle never been there...after all, it is much more sophisticated, yet it was a high risk operation to go and repair the Hubble telescope due to being close to the radiation belt, yet the flimsy lunar module made it to the moon, you can't blame people for being sceptical...just saying.
@cptfunkstar well said. close minded lunar-ticks avoid logical answers of evidence against them; like how the wires were well above the antenna in this film and how the dangle effect was real and he omitted the best clip of that effect etc. and (machines/hearsay aside) there's no evidence we went there in the first place only nixon the proven liar/crook is the leader in this and the last MILLENIA to ever claimed moon landings. forget these people check my channel/NASA playlist.
It's a shame that a video like this even needs to be made. Good of you to take the time to make it though. Most of the time, conspiracy theorists are just noise in the background; annoying if you pay any attention to it.
Apollo traveled 250 thousand miles six times with no loss of life, since then we have never been further than 400 miles and lost 14 astronauts, explain this please, also if it is now too expensive to re-visit the moon, dig out the old eqipment and do it again for a fraction of the cost, can't you all see you were had big time?
Apollo's 8 thru 17. That's 30 guys up to the Moon and back. And 12 of those walked on it, drove on it, & brought back 840 lbs of it.
The enthusiasm for being the 1st in a New Adventure was the motivation, as well as top-notch engineers & a bottomless purse. (Plus, triple-redundant systems ...)
The beaurocracy that NASA became in the 80s & beyond made it a shadow of what it had been, enthusiasm-wise, & all was measured by the relentless bottom line.
Perhaps if you watch less TV cartoons and propaganda and maybe if you get a job,and try put two screws together .Then you'll realise how hard life is.You'll also realise people cannot fly to the Moon,cannot have flown,and the chances are they never will.
Funny that you should say that about 'Digging Out The Old Equipment". The Constellation Project that was just shelved (for now) finds most of its components as direct descendants from the Apollo Project. The Command & Service Modules of the Ares that sit up on the Stack are also ripped directly from the pages of 1960's NASA.
Obviously there have been many updates in materials &, of course, computers, but the boiler-plate is almost identical.
@thecubanism "Explain this please" There is nothing to explain. Your question is special pleading. Other than the Apollo missions, the shorter ranged activities have been much more numerous, Ergo, the probability of accident is higher. Also the activities are technically complex as well. Going to the moon poses no technical problems dauntingly surpassing those of, say, establishing a permanent space station in orbit with regular expeditions. And the old equipment is in no working order. Next.
I've seen all the evidence for a hoax, its the kind that might sway you if you're scientifically naive or maybe young, but its real weak. Don't assume that the public is let in on the high technology of elite industry and government, because its not.
so does anyone else notice the flag moving everytime he jumps? im not kidding, at 1:25 to 1:40 in the flag moves slightly when he jumps. watch very closely. unless maybe a 3rd astronaut that they forgot to mention shook the camera...
Tapping fingers... still waiting, dumb de dumb de dumb and dumber....
They'll have sent a man to the moon for real by the time you get back to me! lol!
Take as long as you like neso, I'll check for your reply tomorrow, I'm off to bed, maybe you went to bed too, nite and sweet dreams, maybe they'll land a man on the moon for real in your dreams ;)
Good, now that we've established that you were lying about not knowing what an Apollo reference number was, will you just kindly send me the Apollo reference number of that photo?
What's taking you?
It's like pulling teeth, or squeezing blood from a stone trying to get the ref no. from you!
I'll try to help you out, here is the link to the Apollo 11 archive on NASA's official website;
@Kenmorfdublin -- I never claimed to not know what an Apollo reference number is. You cannot quote anything I said that even comes close to implying that. You are just multiplying the evidence of your own stupidity with such an inane accusation.
In this conversation I'm the one who first refered to an Apollo roll & frame number. Anyone who reads this discussion can see that.
So, are you going to comment on the differences in texture or are you going to continue to make a fool of yourself?
@nesokretep Good, you obviously haven't read my comment then where I spelled out to you that dash is a You Tube dash inserted linking what it perceives to be a long word on to the next line.
BUSTED again!
Send me the NASA reference number, and if you can't do something as simple as that you don't have any right to be trying to defend that '18 men to the moon and back 42 years ago' utter bollox.
@Kenmorfdublin -- Again : YouTube does not insert a dash in the middle of a "long word" before the next line.
I sent you the NASA reference numbers a day ago. If you can't go back a page and see them, then anyone who reads our posts can do it and can figure out for themselves that you're an idiot.
And on the THIRD computer that I've tested it on, the photobucket link STILL WORKS.
Or you're still too stupid to know what a NASA photo reference number is, send it to me NOW!
You never sent NASA reference numbers before! WTF! - and that's on the record - so you are lying publicly! - and your credibility is going down in flames, just like Armstrong's LEM did here on earth, luckily for him it had an ejector seat and parachute, but guess what, he landed it safely on the moon, a quarter of a million miles away.
@nesokretep Kenmorfdublin is a sock-puppet account of a coward who won't post from his real YT account (kenfromdublin). He uses a sock-puppet to do his trolling because he doesn't want his wife to find out what sort of person he really is. You are right, he is wrong - but he gets his kicks from provoking you.
@BertieSlack -- Doesn't matter if he's a "sock puppet" or not.
I'm just having a little fun insulting him.
And at the same time, he's leaving evidence of how idiotic the "hoax theory" cult is because it's obvious that he's lying. Anyone in the world can see the photobucket picture and he knows it.
- I don't think you need to. He's doing a very fine job insulting himself. What a fool he is. Wow... and such a delusional liar calls himself an astronomer...
@Rob Ah Rob, sure what would you know about astronomy?
Sure the astronauts had to lie through their teeth by claiming they couldn'st see any stars, because NASA hadn't the technical know-how to show stars in the faked photos, because even an amateur astronomer would have quickly pointed out that the stars couldn't possibly have been aligned that way.
Even Collins who allegedly went round the dark side of the moon made the humdinger of a lie by claiming 'he couldn't remember seeing any! lol
Please keep your bizarre conspiracy theories to yourself, I'm not in the payroll of NASA.
Post the NASA reference number to the photo in your reply this message, I'll gladly look at the photo, make an objective and impartial analysis of it and we'll take it from there.
@Kenmorfdublin -- "post it NOW" ... hahahahaha ... Yes. I already did.
.
I know it may sound cruel but what I do with a screaming 3-year-old is to just laugh at him, walk away, and leaving him standing in his playpen crying his eyes out until he realizes the futility of his temper tantrum.
So, go ahead. Keep screaming your demand for the same thing you've already been given.
@nesokretep By the way Neso, to be faitr to you you have been a gent for most of our exchanges and I don't recall being insulted by you, I'm surprised you posted that remark.
Now, the NASA reference number to that photo if you don't mind.
@BertieSlack Ah poor Bertie the glove puppet who has yet to lay a glove on me is all upset because he's too punch drunk at this stage to even know where is.
There could be a million reasons why I have two accounts here, and guess what? - You guessed the wrong reason again, for I have often posted comments here on the same video with both usernames.
I even forget which name I'm posting under sometimes.
How would you know if I have a wife or not by the way?
@Kenmorfdublin -- I really am interested in seeing you comment on the photobucket picture because it makes the whole difference in texture so absolutely obvious.
It doesn't show anything that you can't already see in the other pictures, but it does make it very plain.
I do understand if you don't want to look at it (or admit to looking at it) though.
@Kenmorfdublin -- No. I'm not "implying" anything and you know it.
I gave you the NASA photo roll and frame reference THREE TIMES.
If you're too stupid to look it up from NASA's web site yourself then you are just further evidence of the intelligence level of the sheep who believe in the silly-assed "hoax theory."
@HaiDoggie -- The real answer is quite the opposite. The moon is a mostly worthless and totally lifeless pile of dust and rocks. It may eventually have some value if we ever have a use for tritium. But for now, there's not much purpose in going there except as a scientific curiosity. It's not even a very good place to launch interplanetary exploration from.
If life from other star systems came to our system why would they hang out on a pile of rock with no air or water?
@nesokretep Ah poor nesothekretin thinks that because there is a delay in a reply that you must have 'run away' - the warped logic of the typical OCT'er.
Did it not occur to you that I might have been away from my PC because I have a life and other things to do?
Are you not embarrassed that you have to be asked that?
You probably waited till now for my replies while I was off enjoying myself with normal people who don't believe in this impossible bullshit, how sad for you.
could have been a steel fether? and the asranouts could have been talkin to mission control whilst watchin the prerecorded fakery? and the wires are a lot longer than that antena and your argument about the japs, well listen the appolo program had a massive buget and was quite capable of payin or even bribeary whoever
You video doesn't show the PINGs -- you deliberately edited the clip which shows you are a SHILL. You can't argue the WIRES because you can see the antenna and the wires at the same time....
@jerichomutant EXACTLY jerichomutant, but you might as well be communicating that kind of information to a brick wall, Rob260259 and his fellow brick swallowers just don't want to know, they want the whole fantasy to be true, their happiness depends on it!
You hoaxers, Percy included, need to take a look at the jump on 0:38.
Compare the height he jumps with the astronaut's own height, and it's pretty obvious that he jumps almost as high as to his knees, which means he jumps something like, what, 13 inches?
And that's with a load of extra weight on his back, plus his spacesuit.
If you do the same jump on Earth as the astronaut does WITHOUT any extra weight you might jump 10 inches.
Throughout mankinds history it has been, 5% of the population that invents and engineer ideas. 15% that can understand and implement the idea or technology. 80% do the grunt work or don't understand. Look at the technology around you today...80% have no idea how it works. WE WENT TO THE MOON! The Hoaxers can not understand.
People who argue about the authenticity of the moon landing amuse me.
If indeed there was ever any doubt about weather or not we did land on the moon, I'd expect criticism to come from Americas greatest adversary at the time, The USSR.
The fact they never publicly denounced the trip as fraudulent tells me they didn't have a leg to stand on.
Couple the fact that an overwhelming majority of educated scientists don't believe in the conspiracy I'd have to say this myth is thoroughly busted.
FAKED. The antenna are not THREE FEET HIGH. Compare the flare scene at the 2:28 mark. The light was scene flashing 3 FEET above the helmet of the astronaut. The antenna were only 10 1/2". Measure the Astronaut from his feet to top of his helmet. He is about 6 FOOT tall. Now, take the flare length from the helmet to the top of the flare. IF THAT IS AN ANTENNA, THEN IT'S 3 FEET LONG.
FAKED. The antenna are not THREE FEET HIGH. Compare the flare scene from the so called antenna, where the light was scene flashing THREE feet above the helmet of the astronaut. The antenna were only 12" long.
@ringlerum Search youtube for "An amazing solar reflection off a jet. Awesome lens flare" Take a look at the video. The light when reflected causes an internal reflection within the camera that extends vertically. The same is happening here.
We just need to trust them MORE than we trust mcjob conspiratard whiners who cut and paste talking points online pretending to feel important. Thank god those heroes are out there. We're safe now ;)
Someone once said "Conspiracy theories exist because 'sometimes' they're true." Like when so many of us could see that the U.S. government was lying about the existence of WMDs in Iraq - the whole reason given to Congress for going to war there. If you'd like to trust your government more than those who can clearly see through their bullshit - well then you are clearly part of the problem of complacent do nothings who enable the government to get away with such things. Bravo!
"lying" about WMDs just proves your fear-mongering ignorance all the more, along the lines of seeing what you want to see, hearing what you want to hear, willful ignorance of fact. (In WMD's case, that every other foreign intelligence agreed with us, INCLUDING the Russians).
Hoaxaholics do NOT see anything 'clearly." On the contrary they're totally gullible for whatever webpage talking point is convenient to cut and paste. You know shit.
@SpreadingtheMuse The French and German intelligence didn't agree at all which is what started the vilification of France on American television. I don't know about the Russians intelligence, I wasn't aware that they were sharing their information with the world so freely. Get your facts straight! It's now common knowledge that the 'intelligence reports on WMDs were faked. This was so embarrassing for Colin Power who sold it to the Congress that he resigned afterwards. You're a waste of time.
@SpreadingtheMuse You're confused - France never said Saddam possessed WMDs. It's what I've been telling you. Why you ask? Did it matter one bit that they didn't find anything? NOT ONE DAMN BIT.
I meant to say Russia, not France. Russia said Saddam had them. So we had coorboration and confirmation. From other countries and defecting Iraqies themselves who said "Saddam told us he had them." So ignore it all and hope they're all wrong? Stupendous idea ;)
Meanwhile you've got a "conspiracy" with gaping logical holes that you hope to hell no one notices.
Why "invent" WMDs when other countries confirmed that he had them? I want an answer and you dont have one.
"Why invent WMDs?" - To go to war and make lots of money. Wasn't that obvious from the beginning? They had to sell a war to Congress in order to get the funds into the pockets of Halliburton who received a no-bid, cost-plus contract due to Dick Cheney having been previously on their board. Washington is a revolving door between private sector jobs and political office.
Maybe the 'radiation' you work with is taking its toll. You should invest in a really thick lead helmet.
If you need a war to make money, why give a reason thats so easily refutable? This is the biggest hole in the argument that no hoax loser has ever answered. If you're going to make up any reason you want, why not pick something better? See you're gorging on a ridiculous contradiction: An evil gov thats full of evil geniuses to fake an attack to start a war, but these genius pick the stupidest reason they can, with no support and no evidence. Ridiculous by any measure.
@SpreadingtheMuse I never stated the government faked an attack to start a war. You got me confused with others who you've wasted your time trolling on. I liked the end of your channel's page where you stated something like "get off the couch and do something" - I would never have interpreted that to mean "go sit at your computer and troll like an epic douch." Just to make your day -.I lived my first 28 years in the U.S. and left because of people like you. I left for good, you're welcome.
Your problem is I have a whole page of "doing something" already there ready to go. ;) I'm the one who makes the science movies, works in a nuclear lab, and writes novels. YOU are the youtard who got caught using dork conspiracy #1 as "proof" of dork conspiracy #2. That sure proved everything didnt it? ;)
Leaving the US was obviously just running away from your problems. You went all that way just to act as stupid as the mcjob conspitards who stayed right here. Congrats ;)
I'm glad you can end discussions with such grace, but that's still avoiding your problems. If you never face the illogic and refuting facts of your belief system, its you'll have the life filled to its eyeballs with regret. I dont wish that on anyone.
And bringing up 911 on a Moon page only proves you'll believe anything you read on a hoax page. Princess Di killed JFK after blowing up the New Orleans levees so WTC 7 could be infiltrated by Elvis to grab the Pearl Harbor evidence.
Thank god you're here to tell us these things. I was worried you were going to look stupid ;)
@jasonlajoie Surely the non discovery of WMD proved there is no all powerful conspiracy controlling everything.If this "illuminati" could fake apollo and 9-11 then hiding a few WMDs in Iraq would be simple.Yet nothing appeared,handing their opponents a huge PR victory! your logic is sketchy,and writing in CAPITALS won`t change that fact.
@swfcocs1 Must I repeat? Really? They weren't necessary to find. The idea was needed to sell the war. No actual weapons were needed to prove it justifiable after the fact. Has the non-discovery resulted in the U.S. withdraw from Iraq? No it hasn't. So what's your point? That because weapons weren't planted there in the sand by the U.S. government or CIA operatives that no conspiracy must exist anywhere else? Are you for real?
At "normal speed" it looks totally wrong, film yourself jumping and you'll see. If these conspiracy nuts were familiar with animation they wouldn't even try this"proof"
Percy wipes the floor with this deluded idiot, have some pride and self rspect and wake the fuck up to reality, or do you want to be idiots for the rest of your lives?
How dumb people are! - we no more landed men on the moon than we landed men on Pluto!
12 of them up and back and not one casualty? Yet 14 have died in low Earth orbit since?
NASA still doesn't have the technology to successfully land a manned rocket on earth - send it back up again and land it safely again on EARTH - never mind the f*cking moon! - you need your head examined if you believe this cold war fairy tale.
Even the late great Carl Sagan stated it was just a cold war exercise.
@KenfromDublin No; he didn't. PS: Your "arguments" are not fact, they are opinions (that have not even been correlated properly). This is not "evidence".
You parenthsize the word "arguments" as if it's a quote, please cite where I used that word please - I don't see it in my comment.
...and right back atcha - just your uncorrelated opinion too.
You've just gone down in flames like Neil Armstrong's lander did when he lost control of it here on Earth - just as well it had an ejector seat and parachute - no air up there to save him. ;)
@KenfromDublin It is not my opinion, Ken, it is established scientific fact. I am not going to go over the problems with the LLRV with you and why it was so much more unstable than the actual Lunar Module because both you and I know I would be wasting my time.
...and for the 2nd time - "you parenthsized the word "arguments" as if it's a quote, please cite where I used that word please - I don't see it in my comment."
"No; he didn't" - proof please!
You are not going over the problems with the LLRV with me? - why ever not? ...WELL???
"...because both you and I know I would be wasting my time."
Speak for yourself, I know I would be wasting MY time
@KenfromDublin Apollo EVAs were done during the lunar day, when the sun was just above the horizon. Some astronauts didn't see any stars because stars are very faint compared to the brightness of the sun, especially when there is no atmosphere to diffuse the sunlight. How many stars can you see during the day?The astronauts also wore very strong sun visors. However, some Apollo astronauts reported being able to see the brighter stars when they were stood in the shadow of the LEM.
@BertieSlack Please post a legitimate link verifying "some Apollo astronauts reported being able to see the brighter stars when they were stood in the shadow of the LEM"
This is a contradictory claim too, because an astronaut would only have turn his back on the sun to look up into the inky blackness of the lunar sky to see it sparkling with the brilliance of billions of stars.
The no-stars-visible-in-photos is allegedly because of the lunar surface, this doesn't apply to the human eye.
@KenfromDublin Please un-spam this comment neutral reader please, the hoax trolls Bertieslack and RobRTD2C3PO and their fellow moon travellers can't answer and/or understand it so they flagged it as spam.
We can't see stars here during the day because of the same thing that is between your ears, not space, no, AIR, or 'the atmosphere' which diffuses sunlight here on earth so deeming the sky opaque to stars,there is no atmosphere on the moon to obstruct the view of the stars, and the astronots would have had a spectacular view of the Milky Way and the stars, yet while claiming they couldnt see any they hilariously claimed to be able to see the larger and lesser Magellanic clouds!
@Kenmorfdublin You are really showing your ignorance now. Does earth's atmosphere disappear at night thus making stars visible? How much longer are you going to carry on making an utter clown of yourself? BTW - you can of course see very bright celestial objects during the day - the moon, for example. Venus sometimes too.
@Kenmorfdublin Did Collins say "I couldn't see stars even when the CSM was in the shadow of the moon"? No. He was adding to Armstrong's reply to a specific question about seeing stars when looking at the solar corona. Even if Collins himself didn't see any stars, does that prove that he didn't orbit the moon in the CSM? No.
@Kenmorfdublin How many times, halfwit - he was replying to specific question about the solar corona, and even if he personally didn't see stars, other astronauts have plainly stated they did under certain conditions. So what did you think you've proved? You've already admitted that faint objects such as stars are harder to see outside earth's atmosphere.
@Kenmorfdublin said " 'the atmosphere' which diffuses sunlight here on earth so deeming the sky opaque to stars". That is the funniest stupidest comment from you yet. So how come you can see stars at night if the "sky is opague to stars" Does earth's atmosphere disappear at night? No. The reason you can see stars at night is that their light does not have to compete with much much brighter sun. The same applies on the moon.
@BertieSlack Diffuses 'sunlight' I typed you stupid idiot, read my comment, s l o w l y - if you have trouble understanding it, and don't reply if you lack the intellect to understand what you you are replying to.
@Kenmorfdublin I see. You reckon the atmosphere diffuses sunlight but doesn't diffuse other sorts of light? Why do stars appear to twinkle? That's right, my child, because the atmosphere is diffusing their light. So I repeat - you can see stars at night because of the absense of sunlight. Astronauts (including guys who are up there NOW) have repeatedly said - you can't see stars when in direct sunlight.
@BertieSlack You obviously have NO clue what you are talking about, I have a degree in astronomy, and you are insulting my intelligence with your bullshit, you are an obvious troll who will type anything to back up his case no matter how absurd.
@Kenmorfdublin You have a degree in astonomy, and you don't believe that man has walked on the moon? Did you mention that in your thesis? Where's your thesis lodged? The Apollo 16 UV photos I mentioned below - are they faked and are you prepared to claim that in a peer-reviewed journal? Are you prepared to claim in a peer-reviewed journal that astronauts are lying about what they see when they are outsde earth's atmosphere?
@Kenmorfdublin For starters - I back up my case with moonrocks (the authenticity of which no geologist has ever questioned), thousands of still photos, hours of film footage and the acknowledgement of the USSR who tracked all the missions there and back. Have you seen the footage of the Apollo 15 lunar rover traverse (it's on YT) Wow, that studio must be 5 miles across! How do you create a vacuum in a space as large as a TV studio?
@Kenmorfdublin Come on Ken - which esteemed academic institution awarded you your astronomy degree? Must be one where the scientific method counts for nothing.
@Rob260259 You can't even get that right, it's 40+ years SINCE the non-events, and 14 astronauts have been killed in low earth orbit during those 39 years, yet you believe that just 8 years after Kennedy's pronouncement - with the primitive technology of the time - that we sent 18 men to the moon and back without a single casualty?
You seriously need your head examined for believing that.
Oh, by the way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn Rob that you might be interested in buying ;)
@Kenmorfdublin ...I almost forgot, there were three deaths during those 8 years, but they were HERE on Earth, yet they got 18 of them up 6 times on a half million mile round trip without a bother! - Just think about how utterly absurd that is!
You idiots!
Shame on you for allowing yourselves to be duped like that.
@Rob260259 Hey Rob, looks like Ken realises he's lost the debate. He simply won't answer the question. And he still won't tell us which esteemed academic institute awarded him his "astronomy degree".
I already tore you a new asshole Rob, but your back for more, though afraid to address me directly, piggy backing on Bertie's instead, the blind leading the blind... lol!
@Kenmorfdublin ... Here's your chance to show that you can actually do some research. You'll have to do a little math, though, in order to be sure of your numbers and check them out with independent thinking. So it might be a little to hard for you.
Can you do mulipilcation and division?
That's what it takes to be able to estimate the pressure of the exhaust on the soil. Let's see if you can do it. I'll bet you can if you try real hard.
(1) How much pressure was there? (I've given you all the hints you need. All you need to do is some simple arithmetic).
(2) Why would it have disturbed the soil any more than it did? (You'll need to explain how you know that the pebbles you see are not stuck in the soil.)
Do those two things or else you are admitting you have no clue.
@nesokretep I was out enjoying myself tonight - looks like you weren't - please just read that comment to yourself and ask yourself - " did I REALLY type that?" - it's embarrassingly stupid and you should hang your head in shame for letting down your fellow OCTists, even they must be reading it through the gaps in their fingers.
@Kenmorfdublin -- And yes, I assumed that you were expecting to see a "blast crater." And you had not actually said anything about expecting a blast crater.
There. I admitted it.
Now are you going to admit that you misquoted me? Where did I ever say there were no foot prints on that MISSION? (Or do you still not understand the difference between "mission" and "photo?")
You're the one who is being MORE than a little slow here, as in finally admitting to misquoting me after several requests and several hours.
You're stating of the obvious about there being no footprints in that particular photo can be easily explained away, but you obviously don't have the intellect to understand that, preferring instead to INFER that there were no footprints in the surrounding area.
@Kenmorfdublin -- And no. I did not imply that there were no footprints in the surrounding area.
Of course there are footprints in the surrounding area. Why would I want to imply that there were not?
As usual, the opposite is true of what I said. (You're lying again? Or just misunderstanding plain English?) I talked about taking photos of two different spots, one which has hard soil (because the dust was blown away) and another which has dust. And I clearly mentioned footprints in the dust.
Exactly! - why did you imply there were none by questioning that no-dust-disturbed photo? - laughably trying to explain it away as being 'hard soil', and/or that the dust had been blown away, yet you can clearly see in that photo that no dust was blown away whatsoever, it's not disturbed where the footprints are or where the fake rocket booster is.
So what have you got to say for yourself?
Less of the ambiguity please, explain your stance on this without any more smoke and mirrors please.
@neso 'Smoke and mirrors' is a figure of speech, please try and keep up.
Nope, you're still not making an iota of sense.
(1) In the faked landing footage of Apollo 11 you can clearly see dust being blasted away right out of the film frames field of view, METRES away - not the few feet that you are outrageously claiming!
(2) I never claimed they were under the nozzle,so don't try to infer that I did. Why is there a continuation of dust with foot prints and dust undisturbed by the boosters???
@Kenmorfdublin -- I know that "smoke and mirrors" is a figure of speech. It means obfuscation. I am not using obfuscation at all. I am trying to get some very simple concepts across to you and I am having to break it down into small pieces.
@neso No I'm the one breaking your argument down into very small pieces because you aren't making any sense whatsover.
You can't have it both ways! -You have yet to reconcile the impossible anomaly of footprints right beside the undisturbed dust under the lander, yet try to claim that booster blew the dust away, when clearly we can see that the dust is contiguous from foot prints to right in under the booster, there is no mark off point distinguishing between disturbed and not disturbed soil!
(1) Yes. Dust is being blasted away on descent. It is being blasted mostly from the area directly under the nozzle. In the descent video you can clearly see that the blast lines are CROSSING the area that the landing feet will touch down. You cannot see that the dust is blasted away from where the feet touch down.
(2) I never claimed that you claimed that foot prints were under the nozzle. I just explained that the dust was blown away from there and not from other places.
@nesokretep (1) You are still making no sense at all, you obviously haven't the first clue what you are 'talking' about.
(2) You're still wrong about that as the photo that I posted a link to earlier clearly shows that the soil is undisturbed below the booster, and don't try to claim it is hard soil with pebbles embedded in it as the footprints are clearly embedded in the EXACT same terrain, a terrain that continues homogeneously and undisturbed from below the booster and beyond, ad infinitum.
@Kenmorfdublin -- There are clear differences between AS11-40-5864 and AS11-40-5865.
In AS11-40-5864 (and in the area of AS11-40-5865 that is closer to the nozzle) you can see that the surface is darker and rougher.
In AS11-40-5865 you can see (1) that the roughness is smoothed over with dust and (2) in any given square foot there are many more small rocks and pebbles because the ones that are loose have not been disturbed.
@nesokretep No, wrong again, it's clearly homogeneous terrain, there is a grave anomaly here of monumental proportions and you know it Neso - and instead of addressing it you are just pulling down the shutters of your own denial, in the hope that it will go away.
Comment removed
pooppangclang 2 weeks ago
Phony Moonlandings recorded in a studio. 100% faked
Aeronauticalexplorer 3 weeks ago 2
I'm staying open minded......maybe they did go, maybe they didn't.......if they did, why have we never been back?...Why has the shuttle never been there...after all, it is much more sophisticated, yet it was a high risk operation to go and repair the Hubble telescope due to being close to the radiation belt, yet the flimsy lunar module made it to the moon, you can't blame people for being sceptical...just saying.
cptfunkstar 1 month ago
@cptfunkstar well said. close minded lunar-ticks avoid logical answers of evidence against them; like how the wires were well above the antenna in this film and how the dangle effect was real and he omitted the best clip of that effect etc. and (machines/hearsay aside) there's no evidence we went there in the first place only nixon the proven liar/crook is the leader in this and the last MILLENIA to ever claimed moon landings. forget these people check my channel/NASA playlist.
Playitalready 2 weeks ago
It's a shame that a video like this even needs to be made. Good of you to take the time to make it though. Most of the time, conspiracy theorists are just noise in the background; annoying if you pay any attention to it.
13thLegio 1 month ago
ianman6 So what you are saying is the more we practice the worse we get?
thecubanism 1 month ago
You used the Serenade of Water in the opening didn't you!
zzyzx0788 3 months ago
Glad I watched this. I am more convinced than ever.
CNN911Fakes 4 months ago
every bunk this host "debunks" is flawed. easy spot.
kernzyp 4 months ago
Apollo traveled 250 thousand miles six times with no loss of life, since then we have never been further than 400 miles and lost 14 astronauts, explain this please, also if it is now too expensive to re-visit the moon, dig out the old eqipment and do it again for a fraction of the cost, can't you all see you were had big time?
thecubanism 5 months ago
@thecubanism
Apollo's 8 thru 17. That's 30 guys up to the Moon and back. And 12 of those walked on it, drove on it, & brought back 840 lbs of it.
The enthusiasm for being the 1st in a New Adventure was the motivation, as well as top-notch engineers & a bottomless purse. (Plus, triple-redundant systems ...)
The beaurocracy that NASA became in the 80s & beyond made it a shadow of what it had been, enthusiasm-wise, & all was measured by the relentless bottom line.
That's what killed 14 people.
10Feanor 4 months ago in playlist More videos from LandingApollo
@10Feanor
Perhaps if you watch less TV cartoons and propaganda and maybe if you get a job,and try put two screws together .Then you'll realise how hard life is.You'll also realise people cannot fly to the Moon,cannot have flown,and the chances are they never will.
NASACrooks 3 months ago
Wow - another goofy little Troll who understands nothing but thinks he does. I thought you guys were extinct.
Oh wait, don't tell me! You've been 'using computers for 15 years' & read the Internet both times ... yadda yadda
I bet that looks good on a resume. (You got all the Feathers in Assassin's Creed II, didn't you.)
Son, get off the Conspiracy Websites & start looking at actual history, ok?
I know, I'm sorry - then you'll have to take down those Apollo 11 Training pics on your Channel Page.
10Feanor 3 months ago
@thecuban
Funny that you should say that about 'Digging Out The Old Equipment". The Constellation Project that was just shelved (for now) finds most of its components as direct descendants from the Apollo Project. The Command & Service Modules of the Ares that sit up on the Stack are also ripped directly from the pages of 1960's NASA.
Obviously there have been many updates in materials &, of course, computers, but the boiler-plate is almost identical.
The cost in today's dollars is staggering.
10Feanor 4 months ago in playlist More videos from LandingApollo
@ All
Oops -- my error!
Apollo 9 didn't go to the Moon. It was an orbital dress-rehearsal for the finally completed Block-2 LM.
There were only 27 guys that went round-trip to the Moon, not 30 as I said earlier..
10Feanor 4 months ago in playlist More videos from LandingApollo
@10Feanor
28 not 27. Don't forget baron Von Munchausen.
NASACrooks 3 months ago
@thecubanism "Explain this please" There is nothing to explain. Your question is special pleading. Other than the Apollo missions, the shorter ranged activities have been much more numerous, Ergo, the probability of accident is higher. Also the activities are technically complex as well. Going to the moon poses no technical problems dauntingly surpassing those of, say, establishing a permanent space station in orbit with regular expeditions. And the old equipment is in no working order. Next.
ianman6 1 month ago
I've seen all the evidence for a hoax, its the kind that might sway you if you're scientifically naive or maybe young, but its real weak. Don't assume that the public is let in on the high technology of elite industry and government, because its not.
Stillwater900 5 months ago
so does anyone else notice the flag moving everytime he jumps? im not kidding, at 1:25 to 1:40 in the flag moves slightly when he jumps. watch very closely. unless maybe a 3rd astronaut that they forgot to mention shook the camera...
MrToiletface 6 months ago
Tapping fingers... still waiting, dumb de dumb de dumb and dumber....
They'll have sent a man to the moon for real by the time you get back to me! lol!
Take as long as you like neso, I'll check for your reply tomorrow, I'm off to bed, maybe you went to bed too, nite and sweet dreams, maybe they'll land a man on the moon for real in your dreams ;)
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin
"I'm off to bed"
- Happy dreams mr. 'astronomer'.
"I smell something V E R Y fishy here."
- Go wash your underwear dude.
(Woof)
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 Oh so your a dogfish now - AND a pervert. ;)
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
I knew you'd take the bait! lol!
Good, now that we've established that you were lying about not knowing what an Apollo reference number was, will you just kindly send me the Apollo reference number of that photo?
What's taking you?
It's like pulling teeth, or squeezing blood from a stone trying to get the ref no. from you!
I'll try to help you out, here is the link to the Apollo 11 archive on NASA's official website;
apolloarchive(.)com/apollo_gallery(.)html
Now hurry up! ;)
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- I never claimed to not know what an Apollo reference number is. You cannot quote anything I said that even comes close to implying that. You are just multiplying the evidence of your own stupidity with such an inane accusation.
In this conversation I'm the one who first refered to an Apollo roll & frame number. Anyone who reads this discussion can see that.
So, are you going to comment on the differences in texture or are you going to continue to make a fool of yourself?
nesokretep 6 months ago
"Page not found
But now that you're here, go ahead and search through the billions of photos, images and videos on Photobucket."
Same result.
Send me the NASA reference number instead, and I'll check it out on the NASA website.
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- I sent you the NASA reference numbers.
3 times.
You claim to not see any differences. So I put the suface texture side by side so you can't lie about it.
Now:
Either actually LOOK at the NASA photos or else use the photobucket link correctly.
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep You gotta be kidding! lol! - do you not even know what a NASA photo reference number is?
Three times you sent me a link, how hard is that for you to understand the difference.
You obviously haven't the first clue about what you are talking about then - or else you are actually lying.
I'm still prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt though.
Please just do some research, find out what a NASA photo reference number is and get back to me with it.
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
They are verbatim copy and pastes, the dash is there because You Tube is linking what it perceives to be a long word onto the next line obviously!
Do I have to SPELL everything out for you?
I can't wait to see this photo!
Hurry up with the NASA reference number!
You know - that fundamental piece of information that you knew nothing about?
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin "Your search - photobucket(dot)com/albums/l596/ProsperoMage/Moon/LunarSurface(dot)jpg - did not match any documents."
That's what would have come up had I not replaced the (dot)s and well you know it, so you WERE being disingenuous again.
Try it yourself,
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin --
Right.
Why is there a dash between 9 and 6 in your URL???
You're trying really hard to not look at that photo, aren't you??
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep So are you just giving up like that?
With a whimper and your tail between your legs, with a forlorn last glance behind?
You woofers, strewth!
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- Nope. Not "giving up like that":
I was testing your claims.
Photobucket does NOT give the literal that you are claiming when it has a URL error.
And YouTube does NOT insert a dash in the middle of a long word.
So ... you've seen the photo and you don't want to admit it, right?
Why do ALL hoax-theory promoters always turn out to be liars? You're really not helping your case any.
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep Good, you obviously haven't read my comment then where I spelled out to you that dash is a You Tube dash inserted linking what it perceives to be a long word on to the next line.
BUSTED again!
Send me the NASA reference number, and if you can't do something as simple as that you don't have any right to be trying to defend that '18 men to the moon and back 42 years ago' utter bollox.
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- Again : YouTube does not insert a dash in the middle of a "long word" before the next line.
I sent you the NASA reference numbers a day ago. If you can't go back a page and see them, then anyone who reads our posts can do it and can figure out for themselves that you're an idiot.
And on the THIRD computer that I've tested it on, the photobucket link STILL WORKS.
Anyone who wants to can see it here:
photobucket(.)com/albums/l596/ProsperoMage/Moon/LunarSurface(.)jpg
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep You're LYING again!
Or you're still too stupid to know what a NASA photo reference number is, send it to me NOW!
You never sent NASA reference numbers before! WTF! - and that's on the record - so you are lying publicly! - and your credibility is going down in flames, just like Armstrong's LEM did here on earth, luckily for him it had an ejector seat and parachute, but guess what, he landed it safely on the moon, a quarter of a million miles away.
Hilarious!
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- Just because I enjoy publically proving that you are both a liar and an idiot here is my quote from "one day ago":
"There are clear differences between AS11-40-5864 and AS11-40-5865."
It is on page 5 because you've wasted so much space and time in the interim.
You even replied to it, which proves that you knew about it.
Liar.
Now that EVERYONE can see that you are lying, are you going to admit that you can see the photobucket page?
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep Kenmorfdublin is a sock-puppet account of a coward who won't post from his real YT account (kenfromdublin). He uses a sock-puppet to do his trolling because he doesn't want his wife to find out what sort of person he really is. You are right, he is wrong - but he gets his kicks from provoking you.
BertieSlack 6 months ago
@BertieSlack -- Doesn't matter if he's a "sock puppet" or not.
I'm just having a little fun insulting him.
And at the same time, he's leaving evidence of how idiotic the "hoax theory" cult is because it's obvious that he's lying. Anyone in the world can see the photobucket picture and he knows it.
.
photobucket(.)com/albums/l596/ProsperoMage/Moon/LunarSurface(.)jpg
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep
"I'm just having a little fun insulting him."
- I don't think you need to. He's doing a very fine job insulting himself. What a fool he is. Wow... and such a delusional liar calls himself an astronomer...
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob Ah Rob, sure what would you know about astronomy?
Sure the astronauts had to lie through their teeth by claiming they couldn'st see any stars, because NASA hadn't the technical know-how to show stars in the faked photos, because even an amateur astronomer would have quickly pointed out that the stars couldn't possibly have been aligned that way.
Even Collins who allegedly went round the dark side of the moon made the humdinger of a lie by claiming 'he couldn't remember seeing any! lol
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin
'Astronomy'
LOL
Rob260259 6 months ago
@nesokretep Post the NASA reference number, I want to see the original anyway if it exists.
Just admit that it doesn't exist on the NASA website if that's the case, I can see no other reason why you won't post the reference number.
Can you?
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- Yes. I can post the NASA Apollo roll & frame number.
And, as you know, I already did so 3 or 4 times.
So I'm not going to do it again.
Have fun playing with someone else.
How much does NASA pay you, anyway? Nobody can actually be that stupid. NASA must be paying you to make the hoax-theory promoters look stupid.
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep Pot - Kettle - Black - post it NOW!
Please keep your bizarre conspiracy theories to yourself, I'm not in the payroll of NASA.
Post the NASA reference number to the photo in your reply this message, I'll gladly look at the photo, make an objective and impartial analysis of it and we'll take it from there.
How fair is that?
WELL?
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- "post it NOW" ... hahahahaha ... Yes. I already did.
.
I know it may sound cruel but what I do with a screaming 3-year-old is to just laugh at him, walk away, and leaving him standing in his playpen crying his eyes out until he realizes the futility of his temper tantrum.
So, go ahead. Keep screaming your demand for the same thing you've already been given.
Nobody is listening.
Nobody cares about you.
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep Post it now and stop being such an epistemological coward!
Post the NASA reference number N O W or be DAMNED!
Ask your fellow moon hoax brick swallower RobC3PO-RTD2" top help you out if you have to.
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@nesokretep By the way Neso, to be faitr to you you have been a gent for most of our exchanges and I don't recall being insulted by you, I'm surprised you posted that remark.
Now, the NASA reference number to that photo if you don't mind.
Thanks in advance. ;)
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@BertieSlack Ah poor Bertie the glove puppet who has yet to lay a glove on me is all upset because he's too punch drunk at this stage to even know where is.
There could be a million reasons why I have two accounts here, and guess what? - You guessed the wrong reason again, for I have often posted comments here on the same video with both usernames.
I even forget which name I'm posting under sometimes.
How would you know if I have a wife or not by the way?
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- I really am interested in seeing you comment on the photobucket picture because it makes the whole difference in texture so absolutely obvious.
It doesn't show anything that you can't already see in the other pictures, but it does make it very plain.
I do understand if you don't want to look at it (or admit to looking at it) though.
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep Oh! so are you now implyng that the official NASA photo is less reliable?
I smell something V E R Y fishy here.
Send me the ORIGINAL photo from NASA's own website, not a photobucket non-original please.
Not too much to ask now is it?
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- No. I'm not "implying" anything and you know it.
I gave you the NASA photo roll and frame reference THREE TIMES.
If you're too stupid to look it up from NASA's web site yourself then you are just further evidence of the intelligence level of the sheep who believe in the silly-assed "hoax theory."
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep Just post the NASA reference number, why can't you do that Neso?
Do you really want me to thrall through the Appo11ohoax archives and guess which fake photo it is that you are referring to?
Post the ref no. now or you are well and truly busted!
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
Comment removed
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- You know ... I really don't care what your problem is.
I have other things to do.
Have fun.
There is no need for you to bother looking at facts if you enjoy your fantasies.
nesokretep 6 months ago
For all the success and spin put on the Apollo moon missions in the late 1960's
Nasa has never fully answered the question, why have they never returned to the moon?
Some ex nasa employees know the answer. And that is: That the moon is crawling with life.
And that NASA astronauts confirmed this in the 1970's. Leading many UFO researchers to conclude,
that NASA had been warned off ever returning to the lunar surface.
HaiDoggie 6 months ago
@HaiDoggie -- The real answer is quite the opposite. The moon is a mostly worthless and totally lifeless pile of dust and rocks. It may eventually have some value if we ever have a use for tritium. But for now, there's not much purpose in going there except as a scientific curiosity. It's not even a very good place to launch interplanetary exploration from.
If life from other star systems came to our system why would they hang out on a pile of rock with no air or water?
nesokretep 6 months ago
Comment removed
HaiDoggie 6 months ago
And here we have another illustration of a simple hoax-theory promoter principle:
If someone asks you too many inconvenient questions, just run away. The hoax-theory promoters cannot stand being asked to explain anything.
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep Ah poor nesothekretin thinks that because there is a delay in a reply that you must have 'run away' - the warped logic of the typical OCT'er.
Did it not occur to you that I might have been away from my PC because I have a life and other things to do?
Are you not embarrassed that you have to be asked that?
You probably waited till now for my replies while I was off enjoying myself with normal people who don't believe in this impossible bullshit, how sad for you.
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
Bertie slacked recommended that I watch this;
?v=C-xGOEwmdhk&feature=channel_video_title
Check it out folks, some great comments too about the hoax.
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kenmorfdublin "Bertie slacked recommended that I watch this ?v=C-xGOEwmdhk&feature=channel_video_title"
Great to see you advertising a thorough debunking of the moon hoax theory.
BertieSlack 6 months ago
could have been a steel fether? and the asranouts could have been talkin to mission control whilst watchin the prerecorded fakery? and the wires are a lot longer than that antena and your argument about the japs, well listen the appolo program had a massive buget and was quite capable of payin or even bribeary whoever
spasemonkey05 6 months ago
You video doesn't show the PINGs -- you deliberately edited the clip which shows you are a SHILL. You can't argue the WIRES because you can see the antenna and the wires at the same time....
jerichomutant 6 months ago
@jerichomutant
LOL
watch?v=hjEItn1sSQg&feature=channel_video_title
Lots of 'pings' and 'anomalies'. Are you one of those twoofers saying "fake" because he doesn't understand basic facts of physics and photography?
Rob260259 6 months ago
@jerichomutant EXACTLY jerichomutant, but you might as well be communicating that kind of information to a brick wall, Rob260259 and his fellow brick swallowers just don't want to know, they want the whole fantasy to be true, their happiness depends on it!
Sad but true, you gotta feel sorry for them
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
You hoaxers, Percy included, need to take a look at the jump on 0:38.
Compare the height he jumps with the astronaut's own height, and it's pretty obvious that he jumps almost as high as to his knees, which means he jumps something like, what, 13 inches?
And that's with a load of extra weight on his back, plus his spacesuit.
If you do the same jump on Earth as the astronaut does WITHOUT any extra weight you might jump 10 inches.
Laurelindo 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Throughout mankinds history it has been, 5% of the population that invents and engineer ideas. 15% that can understand and implement the idea or technology. 80% do the grunt work or don't understand. Look at the technology around you today...80% have no idea how it works. WE WENT TO THE MOON! The Hoaxers can not understand.
inotnad 7 months ago
People who argue about the authenticity of the moon landing amuse me.
If indeed there was ever any doubt about weather or not we did land on the moon, I'd expect criticism to come from Americas greatest adversary at the time, The USSR.
The fact they never publicly denounced the trip as fraudulent tells me they didn't have a leg to stand on.
Couple the fact that an overwhelming majority of educated scientists don't believe in the conspiracy I'd have to say this myth is thoroughly busted.
Morrinn3 7 months ago 3
I am an idiot
Therefore this debunk is worthless
Therefore I still think the moon landing is a hoax
~bad logic.
FlyingSpaghettiMoner 7 months ago
WE LANDED ON THE FUCKING MOON!!!! ANYONE WHO BELIEVES OTHERWISE IS RETARDED!!! GET A FUCKING LIFE!!!
kasperlives 8 months ago
You're a nervous idiot. They used wires. THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T JUMP IN 9.8M/S2 gravity.
yesiamawizardjonny 8 months ago
FAKED. The antenna are not THREE FEET HIGH. Compare the flare scene at the 2:28 mark. The light was scene flashing 3 FEET above the helmet of the astronaut. The antenna were only 10 1/2". Measure the Astronaut from his feet to top of his helmet. He is about 6 FOOT tall. Now, take the flare length from the helmet to the top of the flare. IF THAT IS AN ANTENNA, THEN IT'S 3 FEET LONG.
ringlerum 8 months ago
FAKED. The antenna are not THREE FEET HIGH. Compare the flare scene from the so called antenna, where the light was scene flashing THREE feet above the helmet of the astronaut. The antenna were only 12" long.
ringlerum 8 months ago
@ringlerum Search youtube for "An amazing solar reflection off a jet. Awesome lens flare" Take a look at the video. The light when reflected causes an internal reflection within the camera that extends vertically. The same is happening here.
LandingApollo 8 months ago
i like the song in the end,it was in thaht movie Gladiator right ?
TheHotelMoxa 9 months ago
@TheHotelMoxa It was indeed! A fantastic song written by Hans Zimmer.
LandingApollo 8 months ago
Americans landed on the moon.
Osama BinLaden orchestrated the attacks on 9/11 carried out by terrorists who hated freedom.
Kennedy was killed by one man - Oswald.
I believe everything my government says and does. I know they would never lie to me. They're good, honest people who have my best interest at heart.
I sleep very soundly knowing these truths to be self evident...
jasonlajoie 9 months ago
@jasonlajoie
We dont need to trust the gov.
We just need to trust them MORE than we trust mcjob conspiratard whiners who cut and paste talking points online pretending to feel important. Thank god those heroes are out there. We're safe now ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 9 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
Someone once said "Conspiracy theories exist because 'sometimes' they're true." Like when so many of us could see that the U.S. government was lying about the existence of WMDs in Iraq - the whole reason given to Congress for going to war there. If you'd like to trust your government more than those who can clearly see through their bullshit - well then you are clearly part of the problem of complacent do nothings who enable the government to get away with such things. Bravo!
jasonlajoie 9 months ago
@jasonlajoie
"lying" about WMDs just proves your fear-mongering ignorance all the more, along the lines of seeing what you want to see, hearing what you want to hear, willful ignorance of fact. (In WMD's case, that every other foreign intelligence agreed with us, INCLUDING the Russians).
Hoaxaholics do NOT see anything 'clearly." On the contrary they're totally gullible for whatever webpage talking point is convenient to cut and paste. You know shit.
SpreadingtheMuse 9 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse The French and German intelligence didn't agree at all which is what started the vilification of France on American television. I don't know about the Russians intelligence, I wasn't aware that they were sharing their information with the world so freely. Get your facts straight! It's now common knowledge that the 'intelligence reports on WMDs were faked. This was so embarrassing for Colin Power who sold it to the Congress that he resigned afterwards. You're a waste of time.
jasonlajoie 9 months ago
@jasonlajoie
WMDs
1) Saddam said he had them
2) He told his generals he had them
3) Britain and France said he had them
4) Saddam said he deliberately made it look like he had them to increase his arab prestige.
They were faked. Saddam was the one who faked them. Learn your history ;)
Besides, your story has a huge gaping hole no hoax idiot has EVER answered:
WHAT WAS THE PLAN? Why say "WMD!" and then not plant them? Why say "WMD!" and then LET the world find out they were there?
SpreadingtheMuse 9 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse You're confused - France never said Saddam possessed WMDs. It's what I've been telling you. Why you ask? Did it matter one bit that they didn't find anything? NOT ONE DAMN BIT.
jasonlajoie 9 months ago
@jasonlajoie
I meant to say Russia, not France. Russia said Saddam had them. So we had coorboration and confirmation. From other countries and defecting Iraqies themselves who said "Saddam told us he had them." So ignore it all and hope they're all wrong? Stupendous idea ;)
Meanwhile you've got a "conspiracy" with gaping logical holes that you hope to hell no one notices.
Why "invent" WMDs when other countries confirmed that he had them? I want an answer and you dont have one.
SpreadingtheMuse 9 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
"Why invent WMDs?" - To go to war and make lots of money. Wasn't that obvious from the beginning? They had to sell a war to Congress in order to get the funds into the pockets of Halliburton who received a no-bid, cost-plus contract due to Dick Cheney having been previously on their board. Washington is a revolving door between private sector jobs and political office.
Maybe the 'radiation' you work with is taking its toll. You should invest in a really thick lead helmet.
jasonlajoie 9 months ago
@jasonlajoie
If you need a war to make money, why give a reason thats so easily refutable? This is the biggest hole in the argument that no hoax loser has ever answered. If you're going to make up any reason you want, why not pick something better? See you're gorging on a ridiculous contradiction: An evil gov thats full of evil geniuses to fake an attack to start a war, but these genius pick the stupidest reason they can, with no support and no evidence. Ridiculous by any measure.
SpreadingtheMuse 9 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse I never stated the government faked an attack to start a war. You got me confused with others who you've wasted your time trolling on. I liked the end of your channel's page where you stated something like "get off the couch and do something" - I would never have interpreted that to mean "go sit at your computer and troll like an epic douch." Just to make your day -.I lived my first 28 years in the U.S. and left because of people like you. I left for good, you're welcome.
jasonlajoie 9 months ago
@jasonlajoie
Your problem is I have a whole page of "doing something" already there ready to go. ;) I'm the one who makes the science movies, works in a nuclear lab, and writes novels. YOU are the youtard who got caught using dork conspiracy #1 as "proof" of dork conspiracy #2. That sure proved everything didnt it? ;)
Leaving the US was obviously just running away from your problems. You went all that way just to act as stupid as the mcjob conspitards who stayed right here. Congrats ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 9 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse I wish you all the best.
May your life be filled with love and satisfaction and may you never have any regrets:)
jasonlajoie 9 months ago
@jasonlajoie
I'm glad you can end discussions with such grace, but that's still avoiding your problems. If you never face the illogic and refuting facts of your belief system, its you'll have the life filled to its eyeballs with regret. I dont wish that on anyone.
SpreadingtheMuse 9 months ago
@jasonlajoie
"Halliburton" yes yes yes, the cut and paste of big scary words. MY GOD THEY'RE COMING TO GET YOU! RUN RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! LOL
Good thing you didnt cut and paste Illuminati or NWO, or we'd really be scared ;)
SOME of us work for a living and dont need to cut and paste talking points from dork webpages.
SpreadingtheMuse 9 months ago
@jasonlajoie
You still have answered how we can "invent" WMD's when other countries already said that he had them too.
SpreadingtheMuse 9 months ago
@jasonlajoie
And bringing up 911 on a Moon page only proves you'll believe anything you read on a hoax page. Princess Di killed JFK after blowing up the New Orleans levees so WTC 7 could be infiltrated by Elvis to grab the Pearl Harbor evidence.
Thank god you're here to tell us these things. I was worried you were going to look stupid ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 9 months ago
@jasonlajoie Surely the non discovery of WMD proved there is no all powerful conspiracy controlling everything.If this "illuminati" could fake apollo and 9-11 then hiding a few WMDs in Iraq would be simple.Yet nothing appeared,handing their opponents a huge PR victory! your logic is sketchy,and writing in CAPITALS won`t change that fact.
swfcocs1 9 months ago
@swfcocs1 Must I repeat? Really? They weren't necessary to find. The idea was needed to sell the war. No actual weapons were needed to prove it justifiable after the fact. Has the non-discovery resulted in the U.S. withdraw from Iraq? No it hasn't. So what's your point? That because weapons weren't planted there in the sand by the U.S. government or CIA operatives that no conspiracy must exist anywhere else? Are you for real?
jasonlajoie 9 months ago
@3:27 he said erect XD
fancyman3553 9 months ago
lmao Serenade of water in the first few seconds. Ocarina of Time FTW
theOssman1227 9 months ago
@theOssman1227 You are the first person to notice that, well done!
LandingApollo 8 months ago
@LandingApollo ive played it a few times haha one of the best games ever
theOssman1227 8 months ago
Comment removed
THREESIXNINE100 10 months ago
At "normal speed" it looks totally wrong, film yourself jumping and you'll see. If these conspiracy nuts were familiar with animation they wouldn't even try this"proof"
vermanshane 10 months ago
oh i do like a smart arse
duxberry1958 10 months ago
its NASAs fault for not airbrushing the light ping. stop blaming eveybody but NASA
datzfast 10 months ago
Percy is a genius and a hero
Nasa is a sick nazi joke
fuckutube74 10 months ago
@fuckutube74 Is everyone who you don't like a nazi? XP
CalicoVall 10 months ago
@fuckutube74 ...or do you have nazi terrets like Glemn Beck? ^_^ LOL
CalicoVall 10 months ago
Percy wipes the floor with this deluded idiot, have some pride and self rspect and wake the fuck up to reality, or do you want to be idiots for the rest of your lives?
KenfromDublin 10 months ago
How dumb people are! - we no more landed men on the moon than we landed men on Pluto!
12 of them up and back and not one casualty? Yet 14 have died in low Earth orbit since?
NASA still doesn't have the technology to successfully land a manned rocket on earth - send it back up again and land it safely again on EARTH - never mind the f*cking moon! - you need your head examined if you believe this cold war fairy tale.
Even the late great Carl Sagan stated it was just a cold war exercise.
KenfromDublin 10 months ago
@KenfromDublin No; he didn't. PS: Your "arguments" are not fact, they are opinions (that have not even been correlated properly). This is not "evidence".
LandingApollo 8 months ago
@LandingApollo
Oh yes he did!
You parenthsize the word "arguments" as if it's a quote, please cite where I used that word please - I don't see it in my comment.
...and right back atcha - just your uncorrelated opinion too.
You've just gone down in flames like Neil Armstrong's lander did when he lost control of it here on Earth - just as well it had an ejector seat and parachute - no air up there to save him. ;)
KenfromDublin 8 months ago
@KenfromDublin It is not my opinion, Ken, it is established scientific fact. I am not going to go over the problems with the LLRV with you and why it was so much more unstable than the actual Lunar Module because both you and I know I would be wasting my time.
LandingApollo 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LandingApollo
How is it "established scientific fact"?
...and for the 2nd time - "you parenthsized the word "arguments" as if it's a quote, please cite where I used that word please - I don't see it in my comment."
"No; he didn't" - proof please!
You are not going over the problems with the LLRV with me? - why ever not? ...WELL???
"...because both you and I know I would be wasting my time."
Speak for yourself, I know I would be wasting MY time
KenfromDublin 8 months ago
@LandingApollo Speak for yourself, I know I would be wasting MY time.
Michael Collins claimed he never saw any stars - explain that one away please, I'd love to hear your take on that impossible claim.
KenfromDublin 7 months ago
@KenfromDublin Apollo EVAs were done during the lunar day, when the sun was just above the horizon. Some astronauts didn't see any stars because stars are very faint compared to the brightness of the sun, especially when there is no atmosphere to diffuse the sunlight. How many stars can you see during the day?The astronauts also wore very strong sun visors. However, some Apollo astronauts reported being able to see the brighter stars when they were stood in the shadow of the LEM.
BertieSlack 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BertieSlack Please post a legitimate link verifying "some Apollo astronauts reported being able to see the brighter stars when they were stood in the shadow of the LEM"
This is a contradictory claim too, because an astronaut would only have turn his back on the sun to look up into the inky blackness of the lunar sky to see it sparkling with the brilliance of billions of stars.
The no-stars-visible-in-photos is allegedly because of the lunar surface, this doesn't apply to the human eye.
KenfromDublin 7 months ago
@KenfromDublin Please un-spam this comment neutral reader please, the hoax trolls Bertieslack and RobRTD2C3PO and their fellow moon travellers can't answer and/or understand it so they flagged it as spam.
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@BertieSlack
We can't see stars here during the day because of the same thing that is between your ears, not space, no, AIR, or 'the atmosphere' which diffuses sunlight here on earth so deeming the sky opaque to stars,there is no atmosphere on the moon to obstruct the view of the stars, and the astronots would have had a spectacular view of the Milky Way and the stars, yet while claiming they couldnt see any they hilariously claimed to be able to see the larger and lesser Magellanic clouds!
Kenmorfdublin 7 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin You are really showing your ignorance now. Does earth's atmosphere disappear at night thus making stars visible? How much longer are you going to carry on making an utter clown of yourself? BTW - you can of course see very bright celestial objects during the day - the moon, for example. Venus sometimes too.
BertieSlack 7 months ago
@BertieSlack Jesus Christ but you are an idiot of monumental proportions, do you read what I post before you run off with your ignorant mouth?
Explain away the 'no stars/dark side of the moon' Collins phenomenon please, just run with that because you don't seem to want to address it.
Kenmorfdublin 7 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin Did Collins say "I couldn't see stars even when the CSM was in the shadow of the moon"? No. He was adding to Armstrong's reply to a specific question about seeing stars when looking at the solar corona. Even if Collins himself didn't see any stars, does that prove that he didn't orbit the moon in the CSM? No.
BertieSlack 7 months ago
@BertieSlack He stated he didn't recall seeing ANY stars, despite orbiting in the moons shadow - what part of THAT don't you understand?
Kenmorfdublin 7 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin How many times, halfwit - he was replying to specific question about the solar corona, and even if he personally didn't see stars, other astronauts have plainly stated they did under certain conditions. So what did you think you've proved? You've already admitted that faint objects such as stars are harder to see outside earth's atmosphere.
BertieSlack 7 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin said " 'the atmosphere' which diffuses sunlight here on earth so deeming the sky opaque to stars". That is the funniest stupidest comment from you yet. So how come you can see stars at night if the "sky is opague to stars" Does earth's atmosphere disappear at night? No. The reason you can see stars at night is that their light does not have to compete with much much brighter sun. The same applies on the moon.
BertieSlack 7 months ago
@BertieSlack Diffuses 'sunlight' I typed you stupid idiot, read my comment, s l o w l y - if you have trouble understanding it, and don't reply if you lack the intellect to understand what you you are replying to.
Kenmorfdublin 7 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin I see. You reckon the atmosphere diffuses sunlight but doesn't diffuse other sorts of light? Why do stars appear to twinkle? That's right, my child, because the atmosphere is diffusing their light. So I repeat - you can see stars at night because of the absense of sunlight. Astronauts (including guys who are up there NOW) have repeatedly said - you can't see stars when in direct sunlight.
BertieSlack 7 months ago
@BertieSlack You obviously have NO clue what you are talking about, I have a degree in astronomy, and you are insulting my intelligence with your bullshit, you are an obvious troll who will type anything to back up his case no matter how absurd.
Kenmorfdublin 7 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin You have a degree in astonomy, and you don't believe that man has walked on the moon? Did you mention that in your thesis? Where's your thesis lodged? The Apollo 16 UV photos I mentioned below - are they faked and are you prepared to claim that in a peer-reviewed journal? Are you prepared to claim in a peer-reviewed journal that astronauts are lying about what they see when they are outsde earth's atmosphere?
BertieSlack 7 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin For starters - I back up my case with moonrocks (the authenticity of which no geologist has ever questioned), thousands of still photos, hours of film footage and the acknowledgement of the USSR who tracked all the missions there and back. Have you seen the footage of the Apollo 15 lunar rover traverse (it's on YT) Wow, that studio must be 5 miles across! How do you create a vacuum in a space as large as a TV studio?
BertieSlack 7 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin Come on Ken - which esteemed academic institution awarded you your astronomy degree? Must be one where the scientific method counts for nothing.
BertieSlack 7 months ago
@BertieSlack
Ken is one of these people that is sure he is smarter than 40+ years worth of science and engineering.
Rob260259 7 months ago
@Rob260259 ...and poor 52 year old Rob is twoof positive that you can fool some of the people ALL of the time.
You have your home page dedicated to this non-event, how sad for you.
I hope you don't go to the grave with your head up your own ass still believing in this utter science fiction nonsense.
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin
You ARE smarter than 40+ years worth of science and engineering...! Wow...
Rob260259 6 months ago
Comment removed
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Rob260259 You can't even get that right, it's 40+ years SINCE the non-events, and 14 astronauts have been killed in low earth orbit during those 39 years, yet you believe that just 8 years after Kennedy's pronouncement - with the primitive technology of the time - that we sent 18 men to the moon and back without a single casualty?
You seriously need your head examined for believing that.
Oh, by the way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn Rob that you might be interested in buying ;)
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
Comment removed
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin ...I almost forgot, there were three deaths during those 8 years, but they were HERE on Earth, yet they got 18 of them up 6 times on a half million mile round trip without a bother! - Just think about how utterly absurd that is!
You idiots!
Shame on you for allowing yourselves to be duped like that.
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublinfromdublin
watch?v=NxZMjpMhwNE&feature=related
Explain that to us mister 'astronomer'...
Rob260259 6 months ago
@Rob260259 Hey Rob, looks like Ken realises he's lost the debate. He simply won't answer the question. And he still won't tell us which esteemed academic institute awarded him his "astronomy degree".
BertieSlack 6 months ago
@BertieSlack
Yep. Only handwaving and sidesteps from the guy. He's probably one of those Twoofers shouting "fake" because he's unable to understand things.
Rob260259 6 months ago
@BertieSlack Ah Rob is back!
I already tore you a new asshole Rob, but your back for more, though afraid to address me directly, piggy backing on Bertie's instead, the blind leading the blind... lol!
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin ... Here's your chance to show that you can actually do some research. You'll have to do a little math, though, in order to be sure of your numbers and check them out with independent thinking. So it might be a little to hard for you.
Can you do mulipilcation and division?
That's what it takes to be able to estimate the pressure of the exhaust on the soil. Let's see if you can do it. I'll bet you can if you try real hard.
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep Don't flatter yourself by trying to patronise me, you're the one who has swallowed this absurd brick WHOLE.
All the worse for you because you claim to have researched this, which just makes you look even more stupid.
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- OK. If that is not flat, hard soil, show me where in that photo you see any footprints.
Do you see footprints in that photo? No. Of course not. The dust was all blown away.
And yes, you see pebbles.
Why should you not see pebbles? What kind of pressure was there on them? And in what direction?
Describe how you know they are "resting on top." Have you ever dug in the ground? Have you ever seen pebbles stuck in the soil?
For that matter, have you ever been outside?
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep Oh so you're now claiming there were no NO footprints on that mission are you?
You're painting yourself into a corner here, see if YOU can leave no footprints now lol!
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kenmorfdublin -- OK. So now YOU have LIED about me claiming that there were "no footprints on that mission." I guess we are even.
Now you can either start answering my questions or else admit that you have no clue.
nesokretep 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- It's simple:
(1) How much pressure was there? (I've given you all the hints you need. All you need to do is some simple arithmetic).
(2) Why would it have disturbed the soil any more than it did? (You'll need to explain how you know that the pebbles you see are not stuck in the soil.)
Do those two things or else you are admitting you have no clue.
nesokretep 6 months ago
Comment removed
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@nesokretep No - you're simple.
Look, you are arguing with yourself and your strawman arguments at this stage okay?
Get it?
You are making a claim that is so INSANE that it doesn't even merit debate, who are you trying to fool apart from yourself?
"The pebbles are stuck in the soil"??? Crazy! (shakes head at the poor guys stupidity.)
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- Oh, and have you never seen pebbles that are stuck in hard soil?
Have you never even seen hard soil?
That's kind of sad.
Maybe you should try going outside some time.
nesokretep 6 months ago
Comment removed
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@nesokretep I was out enjoying myself tonight - looks like you weren't - please just read that comment to yourself and ask yourself - " did I REALLY type that?" - it's embarrassingly stupid and you should hang your head in shame for letting down your fellow OCTists, even they must be reading it through the gaps in their fingers.
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@nesokretep Still waiting for you to admit that you lied and misquoted me earlier by the way.
You have no credibilty as long as you fail to address that disgraceful lie by admitting it and apologising to me.
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- And yes, I assumed that you were expecting to see a "blast crater." And you had not actually said anything about expecting a blast crater.
There. I admitted it.
Now are you going to admit that you misquoted me? Where did I ever say there were no foot prints on that MISSION? (Or do you still not understand the difference between "mission" and "photo?")
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep Good for you, pity it took so many requests from me before you were shamed into admitting it.
Now - Where did I misquote you?
Type the misquote in parenthesis please - and I will gladly admit to it.
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- I already explained this in sufficient detail TWICE. But since you are a little slow, I will explain it again.
You said: "Oh so you're now claiming there were no NO footprints on that mission are you?"
But, in fact I NEVER claimed that there were "NO footprints on that mission" (as I already explained, but you failed to understand ... twice.)
(Review my statement indicating that you must have the meanings of the words "photo" and "mission" confused.)
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep That's why I asked you!
You're the one who is being MORE than a little slow here, as in finally admitting to misquoting me after several requests and several hours.
You're stating of the obvious about there being no footprints in that particular photo can be easily explained away, but you obviously don't have the intellect to understand that, preferring instead to INFER that there were no footprints in the surrounding area.
So I didn't fail to understand, Y O U did ;)
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- And no. I did not imply that there were no footprints in the surrounding area.
Of course there are footprints in the surrounding area. Why would I want to imply that there were not?
As usual, the opposite is true of what I said. (You're lying again? Or just misunderstanding plain English?) I talked about taking photos of two different spots, one which has hard soil (because the dust was blown away) and another which has dust. And I clearly mentioned footprints in the dust.
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep Oh so you were just referring to that photo, where there was no dust disturbed under the rocket booster?
So what was the point you were trying to make then?
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
Exactly! - why did you imply there were none by questioning that no-dust-disturbed photo? - laughably trying to explain it away as being 'hard soil', and/or that the dust had been blown away, yet you can clearly see in that photo that no dust was blown away whatsoever, it's not disturbed where the footprints are or where the fake rocket booster is.
So what have you got to say for yourself?
Less of the ambiguity please, explain your stance on this without any more smoke and mirrors please.
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- I have not refered to any "smoke and mirrors."
That you don't seem to understand plain English is not my problem.
This will be the FOURTH time I will have explained this and you have completely failed to comprehend:
(1) The exhaust of the rocket motor bounces off the soil directly under the rocket nozzle. It CANNOT billow and blow any of the dust a few feet away.
(2) The footprints were NOT directly under the rocket nozzle.
What part of this do you not understand?
nesokretep 6 months ago
@neso 'Smoke and mirrors' is a figure of speech, please try and keep up.
Nope, you're still not making an iota of sense.
(1) In the faked landing footage of Apollo 11 you can clearly see dust being blasted away right out of the film frames field of view, METRES away - not the few feet that you are outrageously claiming!
(2) I never claimed they were under the nozzle,so don't try to infer that I did. Why is there a continuation of dust with foot prints and dust undisturbed by the boosters???
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- I know that "smoke and mirrors" is a figure of speech. It means obfuscation. I am not using obfuscation at all. I am trying to get some very simple concepts across to you and I am having to break it down into small pieces.
nesokretep 6 months ago
@neso No I'm the one breaking your argument down into very small pieces because you aren't making any sense whatsover.
You can't have it both ways! -You have yet to reconcile the impossible anomaly of footprints right beside the undisturbed dust under the lander, yet try to claim that booster blew the dust away, when clearly we can see that the dust is contiguous from foot prints to right in under the booster, there is no mark off point distinguishing between disturbed and not disturbed soil!
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin
(1) Yes. Dust is being blasted away on descent. It is being blasted mostly from the area directly under the nozzle. In the descent video you can clearly see that the blast lines are CROSSING the area that the landing feet will touch down. You cannot see that the dust is blasted away from where the feet touch down.
(2) I never claimed that you claimed that foot prints were under the nozzle. I just explained that the dust was blown away from there and not from other places.
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep (1) You are still making no sense at all, you obviously haven't the first clue what you are 'talking' about.
(2) You're still wrong about that as the photo that I posted a link to earlier clearly shows that the soil is undisturbed below the booster, and don't try to claim it is hard soil with pebbles embedded in it as the footprints are clearly embedded in the EXACT same terrain, a terrain that continues homogeneously and undisturbed from below the booster and beyond, ad infinitum.
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- There are clear differences between AS11-40-5864 and AS11-40-5865.
In AS11-40-5864 (and in the area of AS11-40-5865 that is closer to the nozzle) you can see that the surface is darker and rougher.
In AS11-40-5865 you can see (1) that the roughness is smoothed over with dust and (2) in any given square foot there are many more small rocks and pebbles because the ones that are loose have not been disturbed.
nesokretep 6 months ago
@nesokretep No, wrong again, it's clearly homogeneous terrain, there is a grave anomaly here of monumental proportions and you know it Neso - and instead of addressing it you are just pulling down the shutters of your own denial, in the hope that it will go away.
Kenmorfdublin 6 months ago
@Kenmorfdublin -- Did you look at the 4MB version of the photos? If you do you cannot deny the di