Added: 2 years ago
From: BruceRFID
Views: 2,983
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (45)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Lame.

    Satellites over Earth at higher orbiting altitudes can make out a license plate number. The moon doesn't even have a thick atmosphere to diffuse an imagine.

    My phone could take better pictures than NASA.

  • I CORECT..."THE WAVES"... plural! HAVE LOOK TO THE RINGS THE ASTRONAUTS MAKE WHILE WALKING , JUMPING AND FALLING. NOTHING SIMILARE CAN HAPPEN ON EARTH. BYE BYE

  • FINAL PROOF IS THE WAVE SPEED AND HOW FAR THEY GO WHEN THEY WALK ON THE MOON SURFACE.. EXPECIALLY WHEN THEY FALL DOWN. PAY ATTENTION AND YOU'LL SOON REALIZE THAT SUCH AN EVENT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN ON EARTH!

  • @NASAvsPETE And as soon as someone images some low shadows of the rover, you're gonna turn around and say it could have been photoshopped, just like every hoaxer who demands some kind of evidence, then once given the evidence, claims it is fake. Say... where is your evidence that the Belts are lethal? Be happy to review it.

  • It never ceases to amaze me...that teenage boys and frustrated young men...are the only people able to uncover all the super-duper conspiracies

  • @ Cosmored2 I'm so sick of the notion " I saw it on the internet it must be true" :| give me a break. Anyone who sites google as their end all be all for information I find highly suspect and very gullible to any sort of info/disinformation...this a great video I wish I would have done it.. good music..

  • If they are anything like Creationist, don't count on it. They will just repeat their mantra "There isn't enough evidence".

  • Oh man, I can't believe I missed this! 5/5!

  • How about you tell me how the regolith is disturbed in the lunar videos?

  • I see you blocked my other account.

    This stuff is fakable.  Anything that's fakable can't be used as proof. Anyway, it doesn't make all the other hoax evidence go away.

  • I've been on YouTube since Dec 27th last year and have not blocked ANYBODY.

    And no, this stuff is NOT fakable. Lunar expeditions couldn't be faked 40 years ago, they can't be faked today, and they can't be faked tomorrow.

  • Well then you tell all of us. What would it take to convice a hoaxer that we did land on the moon? What if in the next mission to the moon they trained a prominent credible moon hoaxer and he came back claiming to have gone to the moon. My question is would you believe him?

  • "What would it take to convice a hoaxer that we did land on the moon?"

    Footage with no anomalies--to see some of the Anomalies in the Apollo footage, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section there's a thread entitled "Did we land on the moon?". The post is on page 15. It's the 7th one from the top.

  • Dont bother, you arent going to convice me of anything. I, unlike you, am a sane person and know we went to the moon. Now quit dodging the question if a credible prominent moon hoaxer went to the damn moon and came back claiming to have gone there would you believe him? Just answer that question dont cite your stupid article because its bogus and im not even going to bother reading it. Just answer that single damn question. Dont dodge it like every other hoaxer.

  • "if a credible prominent moon hoaxer went to the damn moon and came back claiming to have gone there would you believe him?"

    It would depend on the video evidence--someone's word means nothing.

    "dont cite your stupid article because its bogus and im not even going to bother reading it"

    How do you know if it's bogus if you haven't read it? It's not just an article--it's a partial summary of evidence.

  • Because they are all bogus. And what you portray as "evidence" often already has been debunked or is simply conjecture or speculation. So what the point of reading it if all you did was regurgitate already made hoaxers points and splayed it out as your idea. So lets say 10 hoaxers go to the moon and come back claiming to have gone there? Would you believe them? Why cant you take their word for it, video can be faked just like any other evidence. What do they have to gain from lying anyway?

  • "Because they are all bogus...What do they have to gain from lying anyway?"

    All you're doing is tap dancing around the evidence instead of confronting it. Do a YouTube search on "Apollo 15 Flag Waving", and "MoonFaker".

    Do a Google Video search on "What Happened on the Moon".

  • IM TAP DANCING AROUND THE EVIDENCE. You're looking at fucking photos of the shit we left on the moon and I am tap dancing around evidence. Face the facts, you dont have evidence. NASA has all the evidence in the world and the pile of evidence keeps growing and you're the one screaming its all fake. Please do us all a favor and catch a ride on the next flight up there. maybe they can reserve you a seat at the bottom of the launchpad.

  • "You're looking at fucking photos of the shit we left on the moon and I am tap dancing around evidence"

    How do you know it wasn't a studio? Do a YouTube search on "Apollo 15 flag waving". Tell us what made the flag move when the astronaut walked by it. He was too far away to touch it.

  • Listen closely, if your credible sources for research consist of google and youtube maybe you should question your sources. How do we have moon rocks? If we faked going to the moons why all of a sudden did the russians give up their race to the moon if they thought we werent close? What planted those retroreflectors on the moon? What would it take to make someone as naive as you believe we went to the moon? Aside from 9-11 truthers this is by far the stupidest conspiracy ever conceived.

  • All those points are addressed in the post I showed you. Here it is again.

    Google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section there's a thread entitled "Did we land on the moon?". The post is on page 15. It's the 7th one from the top.

  • "Aside from 9-11 truthers this is by far the stupidest conspiracy ever conceived."

    9/11 was indeed an inside job. Google "BookTalk org". In the "Politics, Current Events & History" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "The US Government Planned and Carried Out 9/11".

  • Look at the other apollo clips of the waving flag, look again at the tips. Sometimes the tip moves before the movement ot the rest of the flag. This NEVER happens in an atmosphere since air drag slows it down, only in vacuum.

    All flags of the apollo are clearly in vacuum. NO conspiracy theorists ever put a video on youtube that shows this flag behaviour in an atmosphere!

  • OMG. Thank you for confirming my suspicion that not only are you the dumbest person on earth but the most naive. Hows the kool-aid today by the way? I hear its fermented in bullshit so enjoy. PS, in an environment with no atmosphere the flag moves more easily with nothing to cause resistance. It cold have been the base of the flag settleing all the way static electricity between the astronaut and the flag. Since there is no atmosphere a small static charge is stronger there.

  • PS... I love how you cite more google pages to backup your 9-11 trutherness. What a retard. Do you think that engineers cite google when doing an article for a journal? NO they do real research with these things called textbooks. Something I am sure you havent seen in a while. Try doing real research like reading a material strenghts book. Or a fire safety in design and construction book. I know you have to actually read and stuff instead of clicking away on google but give it a try.

  • Cosmo have you ever been in a studio?

    I do and I can tell you that no studio is able to create this type of accuracy. You should try it if you do not believe me.

    Also this studio would be HUGE and complete vacuum. There is no place on earth so huge that can be vacuum. Also the filmcrew would also be in vacuum.

    The waving flag? A simple stone kicked by an astronaut walking around it would be a too simple explanation I guess? And it is clearly in vacuum if you look at the flag weaving.

  • Flag weaving, yeah right.

    Have you noiced how the flag moves? Hav you tried to get the same behaviour in an atmosphere? Just create a video and put it on youtube that mimics the same behavior with your hoax theory.

    So it is clearly in vacuum, because the flag is not dampened by atmosphere by by friction in the cloth. That is why it takes so long to slow down and behave oddly.

    But if the flag is in vacuum, then no wind could move it. Only a small stone in the dust kicked up hit the flag.

  • Do a YouTube search on "Apollo 15 flag waving".

    The flag is still and it doesn't move until the air from the astronaut's passing makes it move. Remember that the film was shown at about 67 percent slow-motion--that would explain the time it takes to stop moving.

  • Try to make a movie with a flag waving just like that in the atmosphere and put it on Youtube!

    Two things you can check, the number of moves before it slows down, and also notice how the flag moves. Especially notice the tip. It is clear evidence that the flag is in vacuum since there is no air drag to slow that corner tip.

    A small stone in the moon dust kicked up towards the flag is all it needs to move.

  • @Cosmored2 " NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs"

    What photos were removed? Give me mission numbers, magazines and image numbers.

  • Yep, definitely a 5/5 rating. Excellent job!

  • Excellent work. Your image analysis of LRO images is very good. Even more so since you are working with the initial low-resolution images. Great music too, what is it?

    Compare this with all of Jarrah White's simple analysis of overlaying images from Clementine, Selene and LRO. All of which has been shown to be wrong in vector, rotation and scale. You've clearly spent time with your analysis, Jarrah has not. 5/5

  • Music was from the editing program, Magix Movie edit pro 12. It has a cool soundtrack making function, allowing you to set different styles for different parts.

  • Comment removed

  • @FractalDimensions In fact, this is my work and image analysis which is shown in the video. My original thread can be seen in the "Forum de la conquete spatiale", one month before this video was posted, with all the analysis images in high resolution can be downloaded.

    I will probably post a much deeper analysis after the end of the mission with many more figures and diagrams.

  • i get to post a comment too! >:o

    :)

    nice video ^_^

  • Good research.

    To any HBs who come around trying to find "errors" in the angles, try to remember that these are panorama composites. If you don't understand why that is significant then like most HBs, you don't have the knowledge or brains to be evaluating ANYHING.

  • Well done Bruce.

  • Very good work. Thank's for posting!

  • Well done.

  • NICE

  • well done,it all matches up

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more