Not pretending to be knowledgeable about telescopes, but why is it the furthest reaches of the universe can be photograhed, yet the moons surface with all that apollo hardware cannot?
@Bunglezip2 It just needs a bit of maths. Hubble is about the best telescope there is. It can see a galaxy 10 billion light years away (but only as a tiny smudge). If the galaxy is 100,000 LY across (like ours) then the distance is roughly 100,000 times the size.
The Lunar lander is 14 feet (roughly 0.0025 miles) across, and is 250,000 miles away. So distance is 100,000,000 times the size. Even Hubble would need to be 1000 times more powerful to see the lander as a tiny dot.
Now there are pics of the moon buggies on the moon. That means that a couple of hundred more scientists, along with NASA, thousands of scientists around the globe, the discovery channel, and myth busters (who are so pro-conspiracy they ousted the microchip lies) are all co-conspirators. Oh... soviet russia too. This moon hoax myth gives all conspiracy research a bad name.
@peyotecactus "propaganda" is your invention of yet ANOTHER conspiracy. Using dumb conspiracy #2 as your "proof" of dumb conspiracy #1 only proves how desperately stupid BOTH ideas are. Just making up your story as you go
1.how did the large & delicate scientific instruments get on the moon, including the LASER reflector ?
2. moon rock was analysed by many diffferent institutions throught the world, were all these scientists in the hoax or fooled?
It is worth watching 'the flight of apolllo 13' from NASA's archives, much of the raw film footage is shown, including the first upside down contrasty footage of Armstrongs first steps.
I also suggest you watch contemporary 1969 films for special effects techniques lol
this program discusses many more points than the than the busters could cover.
the greatest aspect of going to the moon is the radiation. little to no protection in the several layers of aluminium in their suits and lander could have protected them from one week intense radiation on the surface of the moon. any confident believer volunteer to lay on x-ray table for just 24 hours of constant exposure with aluminium foil sheet?
There's different kinds of radiation. Particle radiation like alpha particles, electrons and protons, which are what compose the Van Allen belts and most space radiation, and photons like gamma rays. Alpha particles can be stopped by a piece of paper, and electrons and protons are also easily blocked.
Further, the Russian Luna 9 only measured 30 millirads per day on the surface, and Zond 5 & 7 found it "safe from the radiation point of view."
According to A.I. Lebedinksy, Luna 9 measured 30 milliards a day.
w w w*foia*cia*gov/docs/DOC_0000722541/DOC_0000722541*pdf (page 12) A.I Lebedinkski did indeed have an important role in Luna 9, and every source I have seen so far corroborates the 30 millirads daily dose figure.
w w w*kosmofizika*ru/sinp/lebedinski*htm
According to this Soviet paper, found flights to be "safe from a radiation point of view."
1. no stars- 1960's film had a low dynamic range, that is the ability to record the difference between light & dark. When you expose film (and digital) unless you can flash or ambient light an entire scene, you have to choose what aspect of the scene you are going to record. The astronauts metered for the moons light therefore only the highlights were recorded leaving dark scenes in the picture. The moon was bright the stars were not, the were not recorded.
@captainumbnuts3 You can also mention the cornercubes. They are used nearly every day even today to range the distance to the moon. They were first used right after they were put in place. That means that we get new proof that Apollo was real for each time the experiment is done.
O'leary said this once in 1970....and never again. This guy also believed herbs would stop his cancer, he died of cancer. Try a better candidate with some proper proof next time. BTW you will go far in life calling people such bad names...not.
you are a nut job and I suspect you are very angry at everybody because you are a looser in life. If you think you will get anywhere in life by abusing people because they dont accept your pathetic hoax theory, you are sadly mistaken. The 400,000 is the number of people directly involved in supporting the moon landings.
How does any spacecraft handle these temperatures? The moon has a hard vacuum atmosphere, meanings the only way to transfer heat is through infra-red radiation and the astronauts were wearing white spacesuits to reflect most of that away. There was some contact with the lunar surface through the soles of the boots, but those were silicon rubber, we make hot mitts out of that.
Moreover, it was lunar morning when they landed on all mission, when it's much cooler.
check out what was plumbed in their space suits its called a water based cooling/heating system, that is what a lot of the backpack contained -the suit heating/cooling mechanism. Deep sea divers have used similar suit warming systems for decades. Well done for proving you have a small brain on youtube.
@captainumbnuts3 first off, deep sea divers don't even get close to the low temperature on the moon. So explain to me, if it is similar to a deep sea divers suit, how is it going to regulate temperature changes from 50-100 degree? you can go look up what ranges deep seas divers go to sooooooooooooo, u'r dumb. Also, does this mean you have a small brain based off your logic?
Sorry if I was a little snarky, this question comes up a lot among moon hoax conspiracy theorists, and they act so proud of it, like it's some real stumper that no one can answer.
Any way, I would be happy to answer in more detail, what would you like to know?
You`d think Russia would have made it to the moon by now if nasa supposely did it 42 years ago. Yet Russia, to this day, haven`t been able to make it to the moon.
1, the Space Race, though real was a propaganda effort.
There is little propaganda value in being 2nd place. And the Soviet manned space program was all about the propaganda, taking risks like using a converted one man capsule to send three men into space, without spacesuits, just so they could have the first multiple man flight.
2, their moon rocket, the N1, was a failure, a bust, with 4 launches, all failures.
@loperspest 1. oh so it was just a propaganda stunt, and the us portrayed it first. 2. the lunar lander was a bust. it crashed on earth on its first test almost killing the pilot.
That was the LLRV or LLTV, a completely different vehicle that operated on similar principles in that it use direct thrust for lift and not wings or other aerofoil to fly, and was therefore useful for training the astronauts in how to fly that kind of craft. But it's as much the LM as a Cessna is a Spitfire.
The LM literally could not take off on Earth, it was too heavy in Earth gravity.
@loperspest yes your comments support my premise that no one flew the lm or similar vehicle to become proficient enough to pilot the thing straight down on landing and straight up on take off. watch the nasa videos, neither during the landing nor the flight of the return vehicle fly do you see any wobble. but on earth in the lm simulator the flight is quickly become totally our of control.
there is no atmosphere in space or on the moon, it is much easier to fly where there is no moving air currents & low gravity. Yes the LM flies straight up in no atmosphere & low gravity conditions, that was what it was designed to do! The astronauts did not fly the LM straight down, if you watch the full film of the Apollo 11 landing you will see armstrong zig zagging and undulating the LM up & down until he found a suitable landing site.
I did note a small edit in one of the official NASA films produced at the time of the Apollo 11 landings (I have watched 100's of hours of the NASA film stock of all space missions) they edited out the '30 seconds' fuel warning in the official fim 'the flight of Apollo 11' that's presumably because the didnt want it to look so close to an abort situation at the time. The only other anomolies are the ongoing fading of Herr Von Braun & his chums from NASA history
"quickly became out of control" Even Ignoring the many flights of the LLRV that didn't crash, it had to deal with forces the LM did not, like wind sheer and a higher gravity. For more formal training, there was a ground based simulator that was used to train the astronauts. NASA got a great deal of practise with the LM in the test missions, from the Apollo 5 unmanned test flight, to Apollo 9 in Earth orbit and Apollo 10 in lunar space.
that was not the 'lunar lander' it was a NASA practice rig (that nearly killed Armstrong) the 'lunar module' would not work in earths gravity or atmosphere. That is a basic fact every schoolboy knew about the Apollo programme at the time.
@captainumbnuts3 the "practice rig" was constructed with similar principles of propulsion and guidance. so how did the lm pilots get so proficient at flying this fat little lunar module. look at the videos of the landings and take offs. they were absolutely stable, no wobble. every schoolboy knows that a pilot in a new vehicle has to fly many hours to get good at it.
@ManFromMelbourne Why dont you ASK why russia never went, instead of jumping to an ignorant conclusion?
Does russia say "we cant go cause its impossible and no one else can either?" Cause if they did, I want that linked right here and right now.
Or, take 30 sec for rudimentary googling and learn something. RUSSIA SAYS they didnt go cause their equivalent to the Saturn rocket had a design flaw and it was too expensive to fix. That was REAL hard to find out Einstein ;)
@MrHypobusa There are currently no supersonic passenger aircraft operating anywhere in the world, so does that mean Concorde must have been a fake by your asinine and simplistic criteria? All you conspiratards have is paranoid suspicions, but not a single scrap of evidence to back your barmy bullshit up. You lot are as bad as religious fundamentalists insisting there's no evidence for evolution, same mental set, fanatics and zealots.
@MrHypobusa Who ever said 60'd tech COULDNT do it? Do any engineers? Any physicists? Who said it and when? Cause if no one ever did, then "60s tech" is a manufactured dork complaint, made in ignorance with no knowledge whatsoever.
Bush's spaceship was going to COST MORE. And it was going to be harder tech. It was going to be reusable, not dumping 90% of it in the ocean every time. It never was going to be a cut and paste of the 60s tech, and no one ever said it was
@MrHypobusa "critical thinking" is the usual first dumb cliche of hoax dorks who never have any. Your "points" were direct cut and pastes of ignorant webpages with no basis in any fact. 10 sec of googling would have told you the same thing had you bothered to try.
BTW, the "lost" footage was lost because IT WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET. The earth rotates right? So Australia recorded a lot of the footage when they faced the moon. THEY lost it. Not NASA
Moon-landing conspiracy theorists are among the lowest of the low.
Fourty years and running, without any evidence in their favor even once coming up, yet they still persist. Even soviet russia during its height, or Russia after the fall, didn't even once contend the americans success. Despite decades of evidence to the contrary, the old generations are set in their baseless beliefs and a new generation of denialists pops up to join them.
Absurd and pathetic in every meaning of the words.
What is absurd is you theorising about the soviets and at the sane time you have the audacity to call us "theorists",that only shows you are a retard.We saw many like you here. All of them coming with the "why the soviets" Aldrin's theory despite the fact we explained to them the soviets were paid.You are one more of these fucking retarded psychopaths with only option in life the criminal american army. Google"soviet grain" fucking retard.
out of 400,000 employees, some ex nazi rocket scientists, somebody woulod have blown the whistle, I mean Bradley Manning did it for the USA and so have many others.
@SuperSaiyan564 No, they only took on and debunked one single claim of the "we never went to the moon" crowd. Yes, it was a very dumb claim but none the less, they took it on and proved for anyone to see that that claim is nonsense. The "shadows at angles" effect commonly seen in photographs has nothing to do with the number of light sources.
@knowledgemonger how does recreating this scenario prove the claim as nonsense? I do agree that most likely we went to the moon. However, airing this kind of episode only seems to prove that a moon set up can be created on earth (like the mythbusters just created).
Listen carefully to what they say. The myth being busted is the suggestion that the only way the shadows can look like this is for there to be multiple light sources. They showed a different way they can look like that and hence the myth is indeed busted.
@knowledgemonger Listen carefully to what I am saying. Yes, in the show they are trying to disprove the multiple light theories (which they completely debunked by showing terrain can affect the shadows). They also re created the "moon setting" on earth. I feel like this is just giving fire to the conspiracy theorists because they made a set of the moon on the earth which is what these conspiracy people feel happened.
@SuperSaiyan564 No, they took one myth and busted it. The next myth gets busted and then the next. The "we never went to the moon" crowd is out of claims at this point. each and every one has been taken one at a time and busted.
it is sad, but those who believe the moon landings is a hoax are mentally incapable of accepting that human beings can do stupendous things. pathetic, really beyond pathetic.
You have to consider the chances of the topografy being flat or the way as manipulated by the myth busters too! If the chance is low then the debunking is weak!
Given that there is no rain on the moon and most other forms of erosion, I would say the odds are pretty good.
Besides they only need to show that it COULD be filmed in conditions possible on the moon, with a single light source, rather than the two as claimed. The myth is that two or more light sources are NEEDED to replicate this myth.
@fredontube There is a possibility af moon quakes, due to gravity. And heating and cooling of the moon surface from the sun will expand and shrink particles which will move them.
here is some, another beyond what you mention is the literally billions of years of micrometeorite exposure, but that's VERY long term. Compare the number of visible craters on the moon, even with the naked eye, to the ones on Earth shows how slow the forces are.
Most importantly, there is no rain or wind to or water to deposit the silt and debris in smooth layers, like in a dry lake bed or soil.
@loperspest Rememeber that the moon gets pelted with trillions of micrometeors, and has been for the past 3 billion or so years since it's creation, since it has no atmosphere, which the smaller meteorites will quickly burn up in, that leaves it wide open. Also, take into account the sheer number of craters on earth (and there are more than you'd think) which are hidden by *fanfare* erosion!
Really it takes alot of intelligence to be stupid enough to beleive they faked the landings.
Yes, but unlike rain, which can build up into bodies of water which pick up the rock fragments in solution or colloid and eventually dry or drop them out in as smooth layers, a micrometeorite erodes only what it hits. So you'll get surface that are smooth from a distance (like the lunar mountains seen in the background) but a fairly undulating and pocked surface up close.
Which is exactly what Apollo, Surveyor, Luna and Lunokhod found.
@loperspest Oh I never claimed you are stupid, merely that the idea that the moon landings were some hoax is. Funnily enough the only people who beleive it are either profooundly stupid, or just smart enough to think they're smarter than everyone else is.
I merely misunderstood your position, I thought you were one of the tinfoil hats.
@NASACrooks Well I am not entirely sure what a nolepople is, but I am sure the explanation is fascinating. However, I am quite impressed that you managed to comprehend the majority of my statement enough to repeat it back to me.
what?!! noo! all wrong! the light was close and was creating an angle, the sun should be very, very far away which would create parallel lines!! ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
@p90killsyou No, anyone who has been outdoors when the street lights are on would have seen that too. The whole "shadows at angles" and multiple light sources thing is just one of those things that people who never really look around themselves believes.
@p90killsyou If 2 light sources, the object closer to one of them than the other will only cast one shadow depending on how far away because the closer light will drowned out the second shadow. You can walk down a street at night and when between 2 street lights you will cast 2 shadows but when you move closer to one, the other is drowned out and you don't see it. Shapes of objects can also cast shadows appearing to be not paralleled. Ex. look at the shadow a Cross will cast.
@Aeronauticalexplorer As long as it can be shown that you don't need two light sources to create the effect seen in Apollo photos, then the Myth is busted, as the myth is that this is evidence fo a fake moon landing, that the ONLY way it could be done is in a way that couldn't happen on the moon.
If you don't believe Mythbustes, here's two photos I found. Notice how the shadows go every direction.
@loperspest Well its not Myth. When 2 images are superimposed into one and both taken in the same place but at different times, the shadows will run in different directions and can show 2 shadows for one object due to the movement of the Sun as time passes. Mythbusters never addressed that so they never debunked it. However, they created their own myth and debunked that. If you take a cross and an X and have them cast shadows, they will cast shadows in different directions.
Anyway, even if the mythbusters experiment is lacking, I am not saying it is, but even if it was, the photos I presented debunk the claim just as readily.
@loperspest Also they DID NOT use the SUN! lol!! They used a spot light. The distance to the light from the object matters in the shadows. The Mybusters are BUSTED.
@Aeronauticalexplorer Anyone who wants to can do the geometry to prove that the distance to the spot light is far enough. Anyone who has spent any time outdoors on a sunny day will have seen the shadows at angles thing. The Mythbusters took on a complete "well duh" myth and made a way more complex demonstration than needed to show that it was false.
it's this government they know what they were doing if they were gonna do it they were gonna do it right so of course they were gonna make it look so real
ok if these moon landings were faked, how not 1 outta the 400,000 people that worked on the program came forward and said it was faked? and how can almost a half a million people keep there mouths shut? thats my question
You are a fucking idiot.How these fucking 1/2 million morons can possibly know the truth,you fucking retard?It's less than 100 people who knew the hoax is going on. The rest were putting screws together without knowing in what they were working,you fucking stupid cunt.
@ApolloWasRealHoax oh im a fucking idiot for stating my own opinion? , come say that to me face in person so i can put a bullet in ur ass and head, internet warrior, grow some balls and only a cave computer hermit will think the apollo missions were fake, just like there own lifes are a big fake life and miserable like urself, BLOCKED
@CryptWarrior69 So you are also calling ME a "cave computer hermit"? I don't buy for one sec. that bullshit NASA Moon landing claim. Its bullshit. Proven.
@CryptWarrior69 You under estimate the number of people who must have been involved if it was faked. Remember that in that era, CGI did not exist. Frame by frame editing of the would be the method. The estimate would be more on the order of millions.
@CryptWarrior69 You under estimate the number of people who must have been involved if it was faked. Remember that in that era, CGI did not exist. Frame by frame editing of the would be the method. The estimate would be more on the order of millions.
dont you find it odd that nasa helped with the projects? to me, that's a conflict of interest designed to fall in nasa's favor. this is like watching an episode of mythbusters having oj simpson help design experiments to prove he's not a murderer.
im not saying we did or didnt land on the moon. im just trying to be open-minded. but nasa's involvment contaminated the whole project.biased in their favor.
here is some of the footage of nasa faking the moon landings within a studio... watch?v=_ecBbSIdBKI&feature=related also search "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon"... it shows the crew faking footage of the earth inside the ship
@st1ckycheese There were no wires so your suggestion contains a false premise. Take a really close look at what is claimed to be wires. You will see an antenna on the back of the suit and a classic case of lens flare that people are drawing a line between. When you look closely you will see that the lines they draw are at wrong angels and really don't line up.
@knowledgemonger Oh yes, you moonlanding fanatics have an explanation for all of the laughable flaws that were filmed on a movie set. Your explanations are pathetic! In one of the clips the astronaut (read: paid actor) is pulled up by the wire before he even made an effort to get up by himself! I'm sure that his "antenna" and the "lens flare" magically made him do that!
@st1ckycheese Go what the clip you are referring to and try to do so without bias. Look at the hands furthest from the camera. You only think that he got pulled up by a wire because that is what you want to believe. It is really obvious what really happened.
I don't really expect you to go look again or to change you mind when you see the obvious but I have to give you the chance. "we never went to the moon" folks put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la" first.
@FINTINLINBIN Ok, I've taken a quick look. I'll look again after I've had my morning coffee. I see the first mistake on the first page. There are actually 2 errors but only one is very easy to explain: The lines drawn indicate that the person has not checked the specs of the lens very carefully. It is assuming a direct mapping from the moon features onto the film. The lens in use is a wide angle lens. Although it is a low distortion one it still distorts.
Rubbish! The Biogon 5.6/60 lens in the Apollo Data Camera was wide angled but it was practically distortion free. In following posts I'll give you some quotes from Dr Joachim Kammerer's learned article in the American Photogrammetric Engineering Journal 1973. There's a pdf of the article available for download somewhere on the Internet Archive Digital Library.
"...NASA was particularly interested in a wide angle lens with the largest possible field of view and absolute minimum distortion characteristics....."
" The lens succeeded completely in fulfilling the rigid NASA demands with respect to resolution and distortion....."
"...it should be possible to reconstruct completely the light rays on the object side of the lens"
The Biogon 5.6/60 lens distortion was in the order of a few minutes of arc over the total field of view angle which can in no way account for the ~6 degree discrepancy between the angle subtended by the peak of the South Massif in the photo and the angle it should subtend according to the contour map.
@FINTINLINBIN You blew it on your analysis. I pointed out several errors. The distortion was only one of your errors. You should go read a good book on optics. You will fairly quickly find out some of your errors. You got the angles and the scaling wrong as I pointed out.
@FINTINLINBIN You can also find the calibration procedures for doing what you are attempting. It really isn't that complex of a concept. Basically, the camera is used to take a photo of known target with the focus set to a known distance and then the film is processed to get the conversion. This is not the biggest error you made but after you have learned a little from reading up on optics, you will still have this one to deal with.
At step 1 the assumption is that the moon's surface is flat is simply false
By blowing up until a feature matches a height assumes no distortion. It will be close but not exact. There is also an assumption being made that the camera is level and 1.2 meters from the surface of the moon. You know what happens when you assume. There is also an admitted "correction" being done.
@knowledgemonger Picture 2: This is using an old map and not a very accurate method of taking angles from it but if the inaccuracy is accepted, it is good enough.
Picture 3: Is making measurements of the angles. With acceptable error.
Picture 4: Has the angle of the camera obviously wrong and is still not correcting for the distortions of the lens. This is junior level errors. It also shows that the scaling was wrong.
@knowledgemonger And I don't really expect you to see the obvious strings attached to your puppet astronaut who gets jerked off his ass by the string attached to him on a movie set.
Look at the comical Apollo 17 take off footage. A real take off from the Moon would not only produce exhaust plume but also a visible tail for many miles(just like the comets in principle) against the blackness of space due to no atmosphere on the lunar sky. Moonlanding my ass.
Apollo was for real. People really need to get over these silly claims about it. The Mythbusters took on some of the dumber claims and showed just how silly the claims are. People who believe the "shadows at angles" thing must not have ever gone outside on a sunny day and really looked around themselves. We see the effect all the time. Shadows follow the contour of the ground. The Mythbusters did a lot of work to demonstrate something that really is obvious.
@knowledgemonger the busters not only changed the contour of the model ground surface which was not identical to the moon surface, but then changed the angle of camera orientation to enhance the shadow angle in the photo. remember they were working on a small scale model with different proportions from the studio model and different yet from the surface of the moon. this was a poor quality control demonstration
@horseofblack The Mythbusters took on the myth that the only explanation for the angle was multiple light sources and busted that myth. They stated up front that that is what they were doing. They showed that the contour of the surface makes the shadows appear at angles. They did good science. I looked again at what they did to the surface to make the effect and you are wrong to assert that their contour is very different from the moons. It is quite like the Apolloo case.
@knowledgemonger good science would have included topographical maps, site maps of which there was no mention, a grid system on the layout board, a light source from which you would get parallel light beams. an overhead control camera to verify parallel shadow angles, multiple fixed camera angles on the ground plain with congruent placement to actual nasa positioning plus other consideration.
it's easy to discount multiple light sources by noting singular shadows.
@horseofblack Remember that all the Mythbusters said was that they were addressing the claim that multiple light sources were needed. This really is a "well duh" experiment. Anyone who has spent any time outdoors will have seen the effect. Shadows follow the contour of the ground. Next I expect them to prove that when you drop a rock it falls to the ground.
Ya but if you take the light and move it towards the middle of the objects they will start to have different angled shadows. Try it at home, take 2 objects and a light and make a triangle with each one about a foot apart. The shadows will be at different angles.
LOL! That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. Nobody ever went from thinking it was fake,to think it was real. And nobody ever will.You must be joking or you are another American retard trying to be smart.
@ApolloWasRealHoax So you've personally asked all 7 billion people on the planet and know for an absolutely fact that not ONE of them was ever a doubter who turned believer? WOW. I sure believe that ;)
So if I know one who did, does that mean you lose?
@SpreadingtheMuse I think it means even more than that. Even if you don't know of any who changed their minds, he still loses. Since it only takes the existence of one, you knowing that person is not required. Certainly you don't know all 7 billion people. I don't know Russel Howard either but I think he qualifies as the one case so your side of the argument wins. You should be able to find his statement with google if you include "QI" in the search.
@officialbobthebaldy It's no secret that NASA has been trying to distance themselves from that original footage. It's really bad... I feel embarrassed that we all walk around pretending the moon landings happened based on those joke videos...
Not pretending to be knowledgeable about telescopes, but why is it the furthest reaches of the universe can be photograhed, yet the moons surface with all that apollo hardware cannot?
Bunglezip2 1 day ago
@Bunglezip2 It just needs a bit of maths. Hubble is about the best telescope there is. It can see a galaxy 10 billion light years away (but only as a tiny smudge). If the galaxy is 100,000 LY across (like ours) then the distance is roughly 100,000 times the size.
The Lunar lander is 14 feet (roughly 0.0025 miles) across, and is 250,000 miles away. So distance is 100,000,000 times the size. Even Hubble would need to be 1000 times more powerful to see the lander as a tiny dot.
TheBaldmeister 1 day ago 2
Now there are pics of the moon buggies on the moon. That means that a couple of hundred more scientists, along with NASA, thousands of scientists around the globe, the discovery channel, and myth busters (who are so pro-conspiracy they ousted the microchip lies) are all co-conspirators. Oh... soviet russia too. This moon hoax myth gives all conspiracy research a bad name.
Pentdad 2 days ago
Discovery Channel is a propaganda outlet for the boxcutters crowd.
peyotecactus 2 days ago
@peyotecactus "propaganda" is your invention of yet ANOTHER conspiracy. Using dumb conspiracy #2 as your "proof" of dumb conspiracy #1 only proves how desperately stupid BOTH ideas are. Just making up your story as you go
SpreadingtheMuse 2 days ago
@peyotecactus
Discovery Channel's owner is NASA.
NASACrooks 2 days ago
1.how did the large & delicate scientific instruments get on the moon, including the LASER reflector ?
2. moon rock was analysed by many diffferent institutions throught the world, were all these scientists in the hoax or fooled?
It is worth watching 'the flight of apolllo 13' from NASA's archives, much of the raw film footage is shown, including the first upside down contrasty footage of Armstrongs first steps.
I also suggest you watch contemporary 1969 films for special effects techniques lol
captainumbnuts3 5 days ago
now do the holocaust
insanic1 5 days ago
watch: /watch?v=tOMYtdmvgpk&feature=fvwp&NR=1
this program discusses many more points than the than the busters could cover.
the greatest aspect of going to the moon is the radiation. little to no protection in the several layers of aluminium in their suits and lander could have protected them from one week intense radiation on the surface of the moon. any confident believer volunteer to lay on x-ray table for just 24 hours of constant exposure with aluminium foil sheet?
horseofblack 6 days ago
@horseofblack
There's different kinds of radiation. Particle radiation like alpha particles, electrons and protons, which are what compose the Van Allen belts and most space radiation, and photons like gamma rays. Alpha particles can be stopped by a piece of paper, and electrons and protons are also easily blocked.
Further, the Russian Luna 9 only measured 30 millirads per day on the surface, and Zond 5 & 7 found it "safe from the radiation point of view."
I can provide sources.
loperspest 6 days ago
@loperspest please do post sources.
horseofblack 4 days ago
@horseofblack
According to A.I. Lebedinksy, Luna 9 measured 30 milliards a day.
w w w*foia*cia*gov/docs/DOC_0000722541/DOC_0000722541*pdf (page 12) A.I Lebedinkski did indeed have an important role in Luna 9, and every source I have seen so far corroborates the 30 millirads daily dose figure.
w w w*kosmofizika*ru/sinp/lebedinski*htm
According to this Soviet paper, found flights to be "safe from a radiation point of view."
cdsweb*cern*ch/record/864491/files/p484*pdf (page 4)
loperspest 3 days ago
@horseofblack
1. no stars- 1960's film had a low dynamic range, that is the ability to record the difference between light & dark. When you expose film (and digital) unless you can flash or ambient light an entire scene, you have to choose what aspect of the scene you are going to record. The astronauts metered for the moons light therefore only the highlights were recorded leaving dark scenes in the picture. The moon was bright the stars were not, the were not recorded.
captainumbnuts3 3 days ago
@horseofblack
I watched the film, and here are the results of the japanese moon probe referred to at the end:
Japanese SELENE (Kaguya) Lunar Mission Spots Apollo 15 Landing Site (Images)
universetodaydotcom/15579/japanese-selene-kaguya-lunar-mission-spots-apollo-15-landing-site-images/
and also these from the LRO:
nasadotgov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/index.html
romove the dot and replace with a .
captainumbnuts3 3 days ago
@captainumbnuts3 You can also mention the cornercubes. They are used nearly every day even today to range the distance to the moon. They were first used right after they were put in place. That means that we get new proof that Apollo was real for each time the experiment is done.
knowledgemonger 3 days ago
now let's see, can 400,000 NASA employees keep a secret.......
captainumbnuts3 6 days ago
@captainumbnuts3
What 400.000 people supposedly knew you fucking dickhead?
Do you claim the NASA hoaxers send 400,000 retards on the "moon" instead of 27?
NASACrooks 6 days ago
@NASACrooks
400,000 people worked for NASA during the moon landings, you find me one who says it was a hoax ????
captainumbnuts3 6 days ago
@captainumbnuts3
Brian O'Leary.
NASACrooks 6 days ago
@captainumbnuts3
Brian O'Leary.
NASACrooks 6 days ago
@captainumbnuts3
Brian O Leary. Astronaut and scientific adviser of the Apollo program says:" I'm not sure these men walked on the Moon" Ok fucking retard?
NASACrooks 6 days ago
@NASACrooks
O'leary said this once in 1970....and never again. This guy also believed herbs would stop his cancer, he died of cancer. Try a better candidate with some proper proof next time. BTW you will go far in life calling people such bad names...not.
captainumbnuts3 5 days ago
Comment removed
horseofblack 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@captainumbnuts3 sure thing
watch: /watch?v=tOMYtdmvgpk&feature=fvwp&NR=1
this is on youtube. the main contributor is a rocker engineer who worked on the project.
horseofblack 4 days ago
@NASACrooks
you are a nut job and I suspect you are very angry at everybody because you are a looser in life. If you think you will get anywhere in life by abusing people because they dont accept your pathetic hoax theory, you are sadly mistaken. The 400,000 is the number of people directly involved in supporting the moon landings.
captainumbnuts3 5 days ago
@captainumbnuts3
I have no time for you.Jump off a bridge little retard.
NASACrooks 5 days ago
@NASACrooks
what an intelligent response...........
captainumbnuts3 4 days ago
how could they handle the temperatures in space
williemetoyer1 1 week ago
@williemetoyer1
How does any spacecraft handle these temperatures? The moon has a hard vacuum atmosphere, meanings the only way to transfer heat is through infra-red radiation and the astronauts were wearing white spacesuits to reflect most of that away. There was some contact with the lunar surface through the soles of the boots, but those were silicon rubber, we make hot mitts out of that.
Moreover, it was lunar morning when they landed on all mission, when it's much cooler.
loperspest 1 week ago
@loperspest
check out what was plumbed in their space suits its called a water based cooling/heating system, that is what a lot of the backpack contained -the suit heating/cooling mechanism. Deep sea divers have used similar suit warming systems for decades. Well done for proving you have a small brain on youtube.
captainumbnuts3 6 days ago
@captainumbnuts3
Yes, I know water sublimation systems was the active cooling system, modern spacesuits like the NASA EMU and the Orlan use the same principle.
Though that was as much, if not more, to get rid of the astronauts waste heat as cooling from incoming heat.
loperspest 6 days ago
@captainumbnuts3 first off, deep sea divers don't even get close to the low temperature on the moon. So explain to me, if it is similar to a deep sea divers suit, how is it going to regulate temperature changes from 50-100 degree? you can go look up what ranges deep seas divers go to sooooooooooooo, u'r dumb. Also, does this mean you have a small brain based off your logic?
crish09r 5 days ago
@crish09r
It's similar in that it uses water through tubes.
There's many differences thermally between space and water.
For one, water is very conductive of heat.
In fact, a vacuum is an insulator as far as conduction is concerned.
There's also no convection.
Infra-red radiation is the only way to transmit heat in a vacuum; it's why a Thermos works.
Also, EVA in low Earth orbit have the same temperature extremes as the moon. In fact modified versions of the A7L were used in Skylab EVA.
loperspest 5 days ago
@crish09r
the principles are the same, cooling/heating by liquids.
captainumbnuts3 4 days ago
@loperspest well atleast you tried to explain it to me and i thank you for that
williemetoyer1 6 days ago
@williemetoyer1
Sorry if I was a little snarky, this question comes up a lot among moon hoax conspiracy theorists, and they act so proud of it, like it's some real stumper that no one can answer.
Any way, I would be happy to answer in more detail, what would you like to know?
loperspest 5 days ago
@williemetoyer1
they developed new materials.
captainumbnuts3 6 days ago
You`d think Russia would have made it to the moon by now if nasa supposely did it 42 years ago. Yet Russia, to this day, haven`t been able to make it to the moon.
ManFromMelbourne 1 week ago
@ManFromMelbourne
1, the Space Race, though real was a propaganda effort.
There is little propaganda value in being 2nd place. And the Soviet manned space program was all about the propaganda, taking risks like using a converted one man capsule to send three men into space, without spacesuits, just so they could have the first multiple man flight.
2, their moon rocket, the N1, was a failure, a bust, with 4 launches, all failures.
Hard to get to the moon without a moon rocket.
loperspest 1 week ago
@loperspest 1. oh so it was just a propaganda stunt, and the us portrayed it first. 2. the lunar lander was a bust. it crashed on earth on its first test almost killing the pilot.
horseofblack 6 days ago
@horseofblack
That wasn't the lunar lander.
That was the LLRV or LLTV, a completely different vehicle that operated on similar principles in that it use direct thrust for lift and not wings or other aerofoil to fly, and was therefore useful for training the astronauts in how to fly that kind of craft. But it's as much the LM as a Cessna is a Spitfire.
The LM literally could not take off on Earth, it was too heavy in Earth gravity.
So there is no way what crashed was the LM.
loperspest 6 days ago
@loperspest yes your comments support my premise that no one flew the lm or similar vehicle to become proficient enough to pilot the thing straight down on landing and straight up on take off. watch the nasa videos, neither during the landing nor the flight of the return vehicle fly do you see any wobble. but on earth in the lm simulator the flight is quickly become totally our of control.
horseofblack 4 days ago
@horseofblack
there is no atmosphere in space or on the moon, it is much easier to fly where there is no moving air currents & low gravity. Yes the LM flies straight up in no atmosphere & low gravity conditions, that was what it was designed to do! The astronauts did not fly the LM straight down, if you watch the full film of the Apollo 11 landing you will see armstrong zig zagging and undulating the LM up & down until he found a suitable landing site.
captainumbnuts3 3 days ago
@captainumbnuts3
I did note a small edit in one of the official NASA films produced at the time of the Apollo 11 landings (I have watched 100's of hours of the NASA film stock of all space missions) they edited out the '30 seconds' fuel warning in the official fim 'the flight of Apollo 11' that's presumably because the didnt want it to look so close to an abort situation at the time. The only other anomolies are the ongoing fading of Herr Von Braun & his chums from NASA history
captainumbnuts3 3 days ago
@horseofblack
"quickly became out of control" Even Ignoring the many flights of the LLRV that didn't crash, it had to deal with forces the LM did not, like wind sheer and a higher gravity. For more formal training, there was a ground based simulator that was used to train the astronauts. NASA got a great deal of practise with the LM in the test missions, from the Apollo 5 unmanned test flight, to Apollo 9 in Earth orbit and Apollo 10 in lunar space.
I don't see your point.
loperspest 3 days ago
@horseofblack
that was not the 'lunar lander' it was a NASA practice rig (that nearly killed Armstrong) the 'lunar module' would not work in earths gravity or atmosphere. That is a basic fact every schoolboy knew about the Apollo programme at the time.
captainumbnuts3 4 days ago
@captainumbnuts3 the "practice rig" was constructed with similar principles of propulsion and guidance. so how did the lm pilots get so proficient at flying this fat little lunar module. look at the videos of the landings and take offs. they were absolutely stable, no wobble. every schoolboy knows that a pilot in a new vehicle has to fly many hours to get good at it.
horseofblack 4 days ago
@horseofblack What makes you think you've seen every single hour and every single test of practice time with the LEM? We cant believe that for a sec
SpreadingtheMuse 2 days ago
@ManFromMelbourne Why dont you ASK why russia never went, instead of jumping to an ignorant conclusion?
Does russia say "we cant go cause its impossible and no one else can either?" Cause if they did, I want that linked right here and right now.
Or, take 30 sec for rudimentary googling and learn something. RUSSIA SAYS they didnt go cause their equivalent to the Saturn rocket had a design flaw and it was too expensive to fix. That was REAL hard to find out Einstein ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 week ago
@ManFromMelbourne
You'd think Russian citizens would have access to safe drinkable tapwater, yet to this day Russia has not provided it.
captainumbnuts3 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Coronal Mass Ejection is the smoking gun that exposes NASA lies.
NASA was very lucky between Dec. 1968 - Dec. 1972.
We could NOT detect life threatening CME until DEC. 1971.
Only two FAKED flights were made to the moon between Dec. 1971-72.
And after December 1972 NASA knew the gig was up.
NASA has not put a human beyond the safe zone (about 400 miles) in 40 years.
So the astroNOTs were very very very lucky, not one wanker came back complaining of headaches or any kind of radiation sickness?
islandbuoy4 1 week ago
They are just showing how it was done..
lies and more lies
Weapons of mass destruction.. yeah right,,,,
MrHypobusa 1 week ago
@MrHypobusa So it was "faked" by little tiny action figures? The more dumbasses like you talk, the more the "hoax" is proven to be ridiculous
SpreadingtheMuse 1 week ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
How did the technology of the 60's allow them to get to the moon in a few year??
where as now Bush stated in 2004 that it would take until 2020 to go back to the moon, as "we have lost the technology"
So it is Fuckwits like you that need to do some critical thinking..
And how did they lose the movie footage??
FYI. Curtin Uni in Perth Oz "found a copy of the footage" just in time for the 40th anniversary .
MrHypobusa 1 week ago
@MrHypobusa There are currently no supersonic passenger aircraft operating anywhere in the world, so does that mean Concorde must have been a fake by your asinine and simplistic criteria? All you conspiratards have is paranoid suspicions, but not a single scrap of evidence to back your barmy bullshit up. You lot are as bad as religious fundamentalists insisting there's no evidence for evolution, same mental set, fanatics and zealots.
astrophonix 1 week ago
@MrHypobusa Who ever said 60'd tech COULDNT do it? Do any engineers? Any physicists? Who said it and when? Cause if no one ever did, then "60s tech" is a manufactured dork complaint, made in ignorance with no knowledge whatsoever.
Bush's spaceship was going to COST MORE. And it was going to be harder tech. It was going to be reusable, not dumping 90% of it in the ocean every time. It never was going to be a cut and paste of the 60s tech, and no one ever said it was
SpreadingtheMuse 1 week ago
@MrHypobusa "critical thinking" is the usual first dumb cliche of hoax dorks who never have any. Your "points" were direct cut and pastes of ignorant webpages with no basis in any fact. 10 sec of googling would have told you the same thing had you bothered to try.
BTW, the "lost" footage was lost because IT WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET. The earth rotates right? So Australia recorded a lot of the footage when they faced the moon. THEY lost it. Not NASA
SpreadingtheMuse 1 week ago
@MrHypobusa
what movie footage are you referring to ?
captainumbnuts3 4 days ago
you tell those psudoeducated numbskulls mythbusters !!!
riv864 1 week ago
Moon-landing conspiracy theorists are among the lowest of the low.
Fourty years and running, without any evidence in their favor even once coming up, yet they still persist. Even soviet russia during its height, or Russia after the fall, didn't even once contend the americans success. Despite decades of evidence to the contrary, the old generations are set in their baseless beliefs and a new generation of denialists pops up to join them.
Absurd and pathetic in every meaning of the words.
ogith 1 week ago 10
@ogith
What is absurd is you theorising about the soviets and at the sane time you have the audacity to call us "theorists",that only shows you are a retard.We saw many like you here. All of them coming with the "why the soviets" Aldrin's theory despite the fact we explained to them the soviets were paid.You are one more of these fucking retarded psychopaths with only option in life the criminal american army. Google"soviet grain" fucking retard.
ApolloWasRealHoax 4 days ago
and you numbnuts think out of hundreds of thousands of NASA workers involved with the moon landings nobody would have whistle blown ?
captainumbnuts3 1 week ago 5
@captainumbnuts3 and you in your multinational company know what the boss is doing ?
vonMohl 6 days ago
@vonMohl
out of 400,000 employees, some ex nazi rocket scientists, somebody woulod have blown the whistle, I mean Bradley Manning did it for the USA and so have many others.
captainumbnuts3 6 days ago
so they proved that everything which supposedly happened on the moon can be recreated on earth? Interesting.........
SuperSaiyan564 1 week ago
@SuperSaiyan564 No, they only took on and debunked one single claim of the "we never went to the moon" crowd. Yes, it was a very dumb claim but none the less, they took it on and proved for anyone to see that that claim is nonsense. The "shadows at angles" effect commonly seen in photographs has nothing to do with the number of light sources.
knowledgemonger 1 week ago
@knowledgemonger how does recreating this scenario prove the claim as nonsense? I do agree that most likely we went to the moon. However, airing this kind of episode only seems to prove that a moon set up can be created on earth (like the mythbusters just created).
SuperSaiyan564 1 week ago
@SuperSaiyan564
Listen carefully to what they say. The myth being busted is the suggestion that the only way the shadows can look like this is for there to be multiple light sources. They showed a different way they can look like that and hence the myth is indeed busted.
knowledgemonger 1 week ago
@knowledgemonger Listen carefully to what I am saying. Yes, in the show they are trying to disprove the multiple light theories (which they completely debunked by showing terrain can affect the shadows). They also re created the "moon setting" on earth. I feel like this is just giving fire to the conspiracy theorists because they made a set of the moon on the earth which is what these conspiracy people feel happened.
SuperSaiyan564 1 week ago
@SuperSaiyan564 That doesn't matter. The claim was that it could ONLY be created with multiple light sources, and THAT is what what was tested.
loperspest 1 week ago
@SuperSaiyan564 No, they took one myth and busted it. The next myth gets busted and then the next. The "we never went to the moon" crowd is out of claims at this point. each and every one has been taken one at a time and busted.
knowledgemonger 1 week ago
@SuperSaiyan564
You are correct.These two parasites working on the NSA owned "discovery channel"
NASACrooks 1 week ago
Biggest hoax of all time.
MickeyMouseApollo 1 week ago
watch?v=vwPYl7a9Yuk
NASACrooks 2 weeks ago
it is sad, but those who believe the moon landings is a hoax are mentally incapable of accepting that human beings can do stupendous things. pathetic, really beyond pathetic.
usaeagle1776 2 weeks ago
You have to consider the chances of the topografy being flat or the way as manipulated by the myth busters too! If the chance is low then the debunking is weak!
fredontube 2 weeks ago
@fredontube
Given that there is no rain on the moon and most other forms of erosion, I would say the odds are pretty good.
Besides they only need to show that it COULD be filmed in conditions possible on the moon, with a single light source, rather than the two as claimed. The myth is that two or more light sources are NEEDED to replicate this myth.
If you can show they are not, the myth is busted.
loperspest 2 weeks ago
@loperspest Yes, we both are right.
fredontube 2 weeks ago
@fredontube Just to clarify, I meant that because of the lack of erosive forces the odds are good of it NOT being flat.
loperspest 2 weeks ago
@loperspest Well you could debate about that point; no atmosphere does not mean no motion!
fredontube 2 weeks ago
@fredontube There is a possibility af moon quakes, due to gravity. And heating and cooling of the moon surface from the sun will expand and shrink particles which will move them.
fredontube 2 weeks ago
@fredontube
here is some, another beyond what you mention is the literally billions of years of micrometeorite exposure, but that's VERY long term. Compare the number of visible craters on the moon, even with the naked eye, to the ones on Earth shows how slow the forces are.
Most importantly, there is no rain or wind to or water to deposit the silt and debris in smooth layers, like in a dry lake bed or soil.
loperspest 2 weeks ago
@loperspest Rememeber that the moon gets pelted with trillions of micrometeors, and has been for the past 3 billion or so years since it's creation, since it has no atmosphere, which the smaller meteorites will quickly burn up in, that leaves it wide open. Also, take into account the sheer number of craters on earth (and there are more than you'd think) which are hidden by *fanfare* erosion!
Really it takes alot of intelligence to be stupid enough to beleive they faked the landings.
ariandynas 1 week ago
@ariandynas
Yes, but unlike rain, which can build up into bodies of water which pick up the rock fragments in solution or colloid and eventually dry or drop them out in as smooth layers, a micrometeorite erodes only what it hits. So you'll get surface that are smooth from a distance (like the lunar mountains seen in the background) but a fairly undulating and pocked surface up close.
Which is exactly what Apollo, Surveyor, Luna and Lunokhod found.
I never said you're stupid.
loperspest 1 week ago
@loperspest Oh I never claimed you are stupid, merely that the idea that the moon landings were some hoax is. Funnily enough the only people who beleive it are either profooundly stupid, or just smart enough to think they're smarter than everyone else is.
I merely misunderstood your position, I thought you were one of the tinfoil hats.
ariandynas 1 week ago
@ariandynas
I won't say these people are stupid, merely ignorant, and like a lot of humans ,very entrenched in their position.
loperspest 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ariandynas
I won't say these people are stupid, merely ignorant, and like a lot of humans ,very entrenched in their position.
loperspest 1 week ago
@fredontube They specifically pointed out that they were refuting the claim.
ariandynas 1 week ago
@ariandynas Yes the claim was wrong, but it only changes the chance from 100 percent to less than 100, so it could still be 99.9. Get my point?
fredontube 1 week ago
@fredontube Decimal point to be specific.
But the fact is, anything can be faked with CGI nowadays, does that mean that everything on the news is fake?
ariandynas 1 week ago
@ariandynas Of course not, but to be fair the moonlanding wasn't just "news".
It is considered the highest technical achievement of its time (or even ever)
fredontube 1 week ago
@fredontube
It is the highest achievement when it comes to scams.
NASACrooks 1 week ago
@NASACrooks Yes and the molepeople run the world, blah blah blah, say something intelligent plz.
ariandynas 1 week ago
@ariandynas
Who the fuck is the nolepople people,fucking retard? Do you actually think we are all live in your cartoon world or something?
NASACrooks 1 week ago
@NASACrooks Well I am not entirely sure what a nolepople is, but I am sure the explanation is fascinating. However, I am quite impressed that you managed to comprehend the majority of my statement enough to repeat it back to me.
ariandynas 1 week ago
what?!! noo! all wrong! the light was close and was creating an angle, the sun should be very, very far away which would create parallel lines!! ahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!
XcrispyducttapeX 2 weeks ago
@XcrispyducttapeX
Depending on perspective, terrain and time of day, you can get the same effect ,even here on earth with sunlight.
w w w 3*telus*net/summa/moonshot/personal*htm
w w w3*telus*net/summa/moonshot/shadows*htm
loperspest 2 weeks ago
The mythbusters to prove the landings real?
What's next? Doris Day?
NASACrooks 2 weeks ago
am i the only one that thinks if there were 2 light sources (such as the sun) then each object would have 2 shadows, in different directions
p90killsyou 2 weeks ago
@p90killsyou No, anyone who has been outdoors when the street lights are on would have seen that too. The whole "shadows at angles" and multiple light sources thing is just one of those things that people who never really look around themselves believes.
knowledgemonger 2 weeks ago
@p90killsyou If 2 light sources, the object closer to one of them than the other will only cast one shadow depending on how far away because the closer light will drowned out the second shadow. You can walk down a street at night and when between 2 street lights you will cast 2 shadows but when you move closer to one, the other is drowned out and you don't see it. Shapes of objects can also cast shadows appearing to be not paralleled. Ex. look at the shadow a Cross will cast.
Aeronauticalexplorer 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from Dolfan0925
@Aeronauticalexplorer As long as it can be shown that you don't need two light sources to create the effect seen in Apollo photos, then the Myth is busted, as the myth is that this is evidence fo a fake moon landing, that the ONLY way it could be done is in a way that couldn't happen on the moon.
If you don't believe Mythbustes, here's two photos I found. Notice how the shadows go every direction.
w w w*panoramio*com/photo/35559506
w w w*panoramio*com/photo/3743809
loperspest 2 weeks ago
@loperspest Well its not Myth. When 2 images are superimposed into one and both taken in the same place but at different times, the shadows will run in different directions and can show 2 shadows for one object due to the movement of the Sun as time passes. Mythbusters never addressed that so they never debunked it. However, they created their own myth and debunked that. If you take a cross and an X and have them cast shadows, they will cast shadows in different directions.
Aeronauticalexplorer 2 weeks ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer
This claim as presented is also in David Percy's "Dark Moon", so no, Mythbusters did NOT invent it.
books*google*ca/books?id=uqi7qKZ5dIMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false
Anyway, even if the mythbusters experiment is lacking, I am not saying it is, but even if it was, the photos I presented debunk the claim just as readily.
loperspest 2 weeks ago
@loperspest Also they DID NOT use the SUN! lol!! They used a spot light. The distance to the light from the object matters in the shadows. The Mybusters are BUSTED.
Aeronauticalexplorer 2 weeks ago
@Aeronauticalexplorer Anyone who wants to can do the geometry to prove that the distance to the spot light is far enough. Anyone who has spent any time outdoors on a sunny day will have seen the shadows at angles thing. The Mythbusters took on a complete "well duh" myth and made a way more complex demonstration than needed to show that it was false.
knowledgemonger 2 weeks ago
it's this government they know what they were doing if they were gonna do it they were gonna do it right so of course they were gonna make it look so real
T5778UVN 2 weeks ago
ok if these moon landings were faked, how not 1 outta the 400,000 people that worked on the program came forward and said it was faked? and how can almost a half a million people keep there mouths shut? thats my question
CryptWarrior69 2 weeks ago
@CryptWarrior69
You are a fucking idiot.How these fucking 1/2 million morons can possibly know the truth,you fucking retard?It's less than 100 people who knew the hoax is going on. The rest were putting screws together without knowing in what they were working,you fucking stupid cunt.
ApolloWasRealHoax 2 weeks ago
@ApolloWasRealHoax oh im a fucking idiot for stating my own opinion? , come say that to me face in person so i can put a bullet in ur ass and head, internet warrior, grow some balls and only a cave computer hermit will think the apollo missions were fake, just like there own lifes are a big fake life and miserable like urself, BLOCKED
CryptWarrior69 2 weeks ago
@CryptWarrior69 So you are also calling ME a "cave computer hermit"? I don't buy for one sec. that bullshit NASA Moon landing claim. Its bullshit. Proven.
Aeronauticalexplorer 2 weeks ago
@CryptWarrior69 You under estimate the number of people who must have been involved if it was faked. Remember that in that era, CGI did not exist. Frame by frame editing of the would be the method. The estimate would be more on the order of millions.
knowledgemonger 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CryptWarrior69 You under estimate the number of people who must have been involved if it was faked. Remember that in that era, CGI did not exist. Frame by frame editing of the would be the method. The estimate would be more on the order of millions.
knowledgemonger 2 weeks ago
Even while watching this video people STILL claim that it was faked. Whatever these people are smoking, I want some.
CynicalVision 2 weeks ago
@CynicalVision
Try watch a video on YT on which the Apollo researcher Jarrah White questioned these morons,fucking idiot.
ApolloWasRealHoax 2 weeks ago
I love mythbusters!
mallorcaimmobilien69 3 weeks ago
@mallorcaimmobilien69
Do you love people pissing in your face too?
ApolloWasRealHoax 2 weeks ago
theres multiple light sources in the mythbusters studio....
BAYTOWNTEX 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
dont you find it odd that nasa helped with the projects? to me, that's a conflict of interest designed to fall in nasa's favor. this is like watching an episode of mythbusters having oj simpson help design experiments to prove he's not a murderer.
im not saying we did or didnt land on the moon. im just trying to be open-minded. but nasa's involvment contaminated the whole project.biased in their favor.
Hip48Xn3 3 weeks ago
here is some of the footage of nasa faking the moon landings within a studio... watch?v=_ecBbSIdBKI&feature=related also search "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon"... it shows the crew faking footage of the earth inside the ship
macdaddylives 3 weeks ago
Ok. SO let these "mythbusters" explain the wires being used to suspend the astronauts on a filmset in this video:
watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
st1ckycheese 3 weeks ago
@st1ckycheese There were no wires so your suggestion contains a false premise. Take a really close look at what is claimed to be wires. You will see an antenna on the back of the suit and a classic case of lens flare that people are drawing a line between. When you look closely you will see that the lines they draw are at wrong angels and really don't line up.
knowledgemonger 3 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger Oh yes, you moonlanding fanatics have an explanation for all of the laughable flaws that were filmed on a movie set. Your explanations are pathetic! In one of the clips the astronaut (read: paid actor) is pulled up by the wire before he even made an effort to get up by himself! I'm sure that his "antenna" and the "lens flare" magically made him do that!
st1ckycheese 3 weeks ago
@st1ckycheese
well said
NASACrooks 3 weeks ago
@st1ckycheese Go what the clip you are referring to and try to do so without bias. Look at the hands furthest from the camera. You only think that he got pulled up by a wire because that is what you want to believe. It is really obvious what really happened.
I don't really expect you to go look again or to change you mind when you see the obvious but I have to give you the chance. "we never went to the moon" folks put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la" first.
knowledgemonger 3 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger
Re: my analysis exposing the fake NASA photo.
Go to NukeLies.com Forum.
Section: Movies, Stills,Soundtracks:Check Media Yourself for Fakes and Lies
Thread: FAKE NUCLEAR TEST FILMS-FAKE APOLLO PHOTOGRAPHS
Drawing thumbnails viewable by guests plus links to full images that can be downloaded, printed off, and studied at leisure.
Advice to others..don't hold your breath whilst waiting for knowledgemonger to produce an intelligent response or refutation.
FINTINLINBIN 3 weeks ago
@FINTINLINBIN
Here is what the site reported: "No posts were found because the word films-fake is not contained in any post."
This was the result of a copy and paste of your exact words into the search. I am happy to refute your nonsense when it is easy to find.
knowledgemonger 3 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger
Google NukeLies.com > go to the site > click on the Section I mentioned > click on the Thread I mentioned and you'll find the 6 analysis drawings.
If this is beyond your capability ask the psychiatric nurse to type it in for you the next time she comes round to change your incontinence pad.
FINTINLINBIN 3 weeks ago
@FINTINLINBIN Ok, I've taken a quick look. I'll look again after I've had my morning coffee. I see the first mistake on the first page. There are actually 2 errors but only one is very easy to explain: The lines drawn indicate that the person has not checked the specs of the lens very carefully. It is assuming a direct mapping from the moon features onto the film. The lens in use is a wide angle lens. Although it is a low distortion one it still distorts.
knowledgemonger 3 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger
Rubbish! The Biogon 5.6/60 lens in the Apollo Data Camera was wide angled but it was practically distortion free. In following posts I'll give you some quotes from Dr Joachim Kammerer's learned article in the American Photogrammetric Engineering Journal 1973. There's a pdf of the article available for download somewhere on the Internet Archive Digital Library.
FINTINLINBIN 2 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger
From Dr Kammerer's article:
"...NASA was particularly interested in a wide angle lens with the largest possible field of view and absolute minimum distortion characteristics....."
" The lens succeeded completely in fulfilling the rigid NASA demands with respect to resolution and distortion....."
"...it should be possible to reconstruct completely the light rays on the object side of the lens"
End of article quotes.
FINTINLINBIN 2 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger
The Biogon 5.6/60 lens distortion was in the order of a few minutes of arc over the total field of view angle which can in no way account for the ~6 degree discrepancy between the angle subtended by the peak of the South Massif in the photo and the angle it should subtend according to the contour map.
FINTINLINBIN 2 weeks ago
@FINTINLINBIN You blew it on your analysis. I pointed out several errors. The distortion was only one of your errors. You should go read a good book on optics. You will fairly quickly find out some of your errors. You got the angles and the scaling wrong as I pointed out.
knowledgemonger 2 weeks ago
@FINTINLINBIN You can also find the calibration procedures for doing what you are attempting. It really isn't that complex of a concept. Basically, the camera is used to take a photo of known target with the focus set to a known distance and then the film is processed to get the conversion. This is not the biggest error you made but after you have learned a little from reading up on optics, you will still have this one to deal with.
knowledgemonger 2 weeks ago
@FINTINLINBIN Further:
At step 1 the assumption is that the moon's surface is flat is simply false
By blowing up until a feature matches a height assumes no distortion. It will be close but not exact. There is also an assumption being made that the camera is level and 1.2 meters from the surface of the moon. You know what happens when you assume. There is also an admitted "correction" being done.
knowledgemonger 3 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger Picture 2: This is using an old map and not a very accurate method of taking angles from it but if the inaccuracy is accepted, it is good enough.
Picture 3: Is making measurements of the angles. With acceptable error.
Picture 4: Has the angle of the camera obviously wrong and is still not correcting for the distortions of the lens. This is junior level errors. It also shows that the scaling was wrong.
knowledgemonger 3 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger And I don't really expect you to see the obvious strings attached to your puppet astronaut who gets jerked off his ass by the string attached to him on a movie set.
st1ckycheese 3 weeks ago
@st1ckycheese Since it is not true, I am not likely to see that. You can goo look carefully and see that the claim of wires.
knowledgemonger 3 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger I point to an apple, and you call it an orange.
st1ckycheese 3 weeks ago
@st1ckycheese Ok. So let these "retard doubters" tie their own shoelaces.
AntiIgnorantDimwit 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Look at the comical Apollo 17 take off footage. A real take off from the Moon would not only produce exhaust plume but also a visible tail for many miles(just like the comets in principle) against the blackness of space due to no atmosphere on the lunar sky. Moonlanding my ass.
NASACrooks 3 weeks ago
@NASACrooks Lmao at your pseudo science bullshit you don't know what your talking about with all that technical crap!
andschannll 3 weeks ago
love mybusters
pam3071 3 weeks ago
Mythbusters ftw. Should shut them Hoax idiots up ;)
Joshkingz69 3 weeks ago
@Joshkingz69
You can suck my dick.
NASACrooks 3 weeks ago
The NASA owned "discovery channel" what a joke.
ApolloWasRealHoax 3 weeks ago
@ApolloWasRealHoax No they didn't.
MrPooBrainHorse 3 weeks ago
Apollo was for real. People really need to get over these silly claims about it. The Mythbusters took on some of the dumber claims and showed just how silly the claims are. People who believe the "shadows at angles" thing must not have ever gone outside on a sunny day and really looked around themselves. We see the effect all the time. Shadows follow the contour of the ground. The Mythbusters did a lot of work to demonstrate something that really is obvious.
knowledgemonger 3 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger the busters not only changed the contour of the model ground surface which was not identical to the moon surface, but then changed the angle of camera orientation to enhance the shadow angle in the photo. remember they were working on a small scale model with different proportions from the studio model and different yet from the surface of the moon. this was a poor quality control demonstration
horseofblack 3 weeks ago
@horseofblack
Ok, how about real life examples?
w w w*panoramio*com/photo/35559506
w w w*panoramio*com/photo/3743809
Shadows going up, down, and even across the mountain in the same photo.
Who knew?
loperspest 3 weeks ago
@horseofblack The Mythbusters took on the myth that the only explanation for the angle was multiple light sources and busted that myth. They stated up front that that is what they were doing. They showed that the contour of the surface makes the shadows appear at angles. They did good science. I looked again at what they did to the surface to make the effect and you are wrong to assert that their contour is very different from the moons. It is quite like the Apolloo case.
knowledgemonger 3 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger good science would have included topographical maps, site maps of which there was no mention, a grid system on the layout board, a light source from which you would get parallel light beams. an overhead control camera to verify parallel shadow angles, multiple fixed camera angles on the ground plain with congruent placement to actual nasa positioning plus other consideration.
it's easy to discount multiple light sources by noting singular shadows.
horseofblack 1 week ago
@horseofblack Remember that all the Mythbusters said was that they were addressing the claim that multiple light sources were needed. This really is a "well duh" experiment. Anyone who has spent any time outdoors will have seen the effect. Shadows follow the contour of the ground. Next I expect them to prove that when you drop a rock it falls to the ground.
knowledgemonger 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@horseofblack
"it's easy to discount multiple light sources by noting singular shadows." Tell that to David Percy and other "professional" conspiracy theorists.
loperspest 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Didn't kennedy senior own a sound studio, and move set???
MrButtlettuce 3 weeks ago
hey MYTHTRUSTERS!!!!
face it...
IT WAS FAKED!!!!
2Xyousee 3 weeks ago
These guys are really butt busters
TheTranceHarmonics 3 weeks ago
HASSELBLAD!
albertosamaniego 4 weeks ago
Ya but if you take the light and move it towards the middle of the objects they will start to have different angled shadows. Try it at home, take 2 objects and a light and make a triangle with each one about a foot apart. The shadows will be at different angles.
infinitewobdrahpa 4 weeks ago
I used to think the moon landing was fake, then I took an arrow in the knee
chrisbnugget77 4 weeks ago
watch?v=vwPYl7a9Yuk
NASACrooks 4 weeks ago
I used to think the moon landing was faked.... Then I decided to grow up and look at things through non biased eyeballs
jakegibson 1 month ago
@jakegibson
LOL! That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. Nobody ever went from thinking it was fake,to think it was real. And nobody ever will.You must be joking or you are another American retard trying to be smart.
ApolloWasRealHoax 1 month ago
@ApolloWasRealHoax So you've personally asked all 7 billion people on the planet and know for an absolutely fact that not ONE of them was ever a doubter who turned believer? WOW. I sure believe that ;)
So if I know one who did, does that mean you lose?
SpreadingtheMuse 4 weeks ago
@SpreadingtheMuse I think it means even more than that. Even if you don't know of any who changed their minds, he still loses. Since it only takes the existence of one, you knowing that person is not required. Certainly you don't know all 7 billion people. I don't know Russel Howard either but I think he qualifies as the one case so your side of the argument wins. You should be able to find his statement with google if you include "QI" in the search.
knowledgemonger 4 weeks ago
My old enemy 240p, we meet again...
addradus123 1 month ago
@addradus123 hahaha nice one :d
Heusdenn 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
- The only evidence NASA has on youtube is from 40 year old footage!
Q. Why?
A. Because 40+ years ago there was less technology and people were easy to trick!
Why do you think there are no recent HD pics/videos to find, except those made so many years ago!
The TRUE FACT is, NASA staged the biggest HOAX in history!
officialbobthebaldy 1 month ago
@officialbobthebaldy It's no secret that NASA has been trying to distance themselves from that original footage. It's really bad... I feel embarrassed that we all walk around pretending the moon landings happened based on those joke videos...
LifePsyop 3 weeks ago 2
Biggest hoax of all time.
NASACrooks 1 month ago