Apollo 14 Lunar Landing

[ldanley72]

I am not going to say we did not go to the moon, but I just want to ask this one question: It has been a issue about no stars, and it was debunked because the AE was low on the Hasselblad 500ELs because of the brightness of the sun. Now that's good excuse when you are shooting the Astronauts, but when you are shooting the earth, and the AE is high, you should see stars too correct? AS11-40-5924 In this picture there are absolutely no stars, just a big blue planet.

[Laurelindo]

@ldanley72 I believe they adjusted the cameras to lower exposure because of the lunar lander, which reflected a lot of sunlight.

Maybe they wanted the Earth to appear together with the lander.

[888888username]

@Laurelindo Read my explanation below for idanley72. The high reflectivity of Earth is the real reason. (The Moon's surface is also too bright for stars to show on film without overexposing the surface, as is proven by my night sky experiences.) Planets and moons are very reflective of the sun's light, compared to the tiny amount of light coming to us from the distant stars. So, both Earth and Moon are much too bright. To capture the stars on film, you would have to grossly overexpose.

[888888username]

@ldanley72 I did night sky photography years ago, as part of my astronomy hobby. I can tell you this: It was always impossible to photograph the Moon and stars together. The moon required exposure settings for bright light, not allowing stars to show up at all.

Earth is MUCH more reflective than the Moon, making the situation even more extreme.

Look at it this way: Earth, lit by the sun, is in daylight. You can't photograph stars next to daylight, and Earth is lit up by daylight.

[codednines]

@ldanley72, you also need to consider whether or not it's daytime or nighttime on the moon. The landings were on the lit side. Had they tried that on the dark side, you might have seen some stars. That's where the problem is.

[tresampio]

hahahhajajjajajajjaj fke hahahahh so fake this is stupid people .is fake

[Synthetrix]

FEB 4, 2011 -Using two high-resolution LROC images taken from two separate orbits, scientists have formed a stereo image pair for 3D measurements at the Apollo 14 landing site. Among the visible objects are the descent stage of the Apollo 14 lunar module Antares, the ALSEP, a rock nicknamed Turtle Rock, & multiple astronaut traverse footpaths clearly indicated by disturbed soils. Data processing methods can be used to identify the objects and measure their sizes and shapes. Game over hoaxturds

[rranswerman]

@Synthetrix I'm afraid it will take more for the game to really be over. It takes an open mind to change ones mind and no amount of proof will convince a closed mind.

[codednines]

@rranswerman, True and nothing short of a personal trip to the moon for each and every retard would convince them.

[goldenconnectionTV]

thanks for the comment!

[CaNaDiiAnBaCoN]

i think the all the people who think the moon landings are fake should stfu and go flip my cheeseburger for $8 an hour.

[datzfast]

@CaNaDiiAnBaCoN i think canadian bacon is just ham. what do you think?

[2nasafakedit]

LRO photos show dots that Nasa claim are apollo artifacts

Nasa Lies all the time

[2nasafakedit]

100% FAKED

[mgwilliams1000]

Alan Sheppard made the moost accurate landing of all the Lunar fihgts.

[goldenconnectionTV]

amazing i am only nine but i loved it i love all about space when i am older i want to be astronomer

[rranswerman]

@goldenconnectionTV It is great that you are interested in this at your age. You don't need to wait to become an astronomer. You are never too young to get a telescope.

[goldenconnectionTV]

@goldenconnectionTV Im actually not nine im not sure why i said that:)

[goldenconnectionTV]

I am a boy of 9 but i am so intrested in astronomy i loved it. it was amazing.12616 veiws already your vidios are famous!

[goldenconnectionTV]

I am a boy of 9 but ii am so intrested in astronomy i loved it. it was amazing.12616 veiws already your vidios are famous!

[TheJomogogo]

You expected one of the astronauts to run behind the other with his head up his butt and take a video of a footprint being laid down?

God you moon hoaxers are stupid.

[vealshanker]

this is pure H.S. the technology to pull this off DID NOT exist. PERIOD. it doesn't exist today, let alone 1969. gimme a break. all of you, "I saw it on TV, so it must be true" morons need to stop being so naive. evian water drinkers!

[TheJomogogo]

@vealshanker

Oh dude I know like if they'd a gone through the Van Halen Belt thingie they'd a all got supar powers like the Fantatstic Four but Buzz Armstrong don't even have Xray vision so that proves it was all fake me an my hoax friends agree with you. Tomorrow we're gonna build a fort.

[datzfast]

@TheJomogogo no im pretty sure he turned into a zombie he keeps mumbling he sees aliens all the time.

[vealshanker]

whats up with the screaming at the very end? And where was the lunar rover stored? Also, why were the Astro-Nots wearing blue jumpsuits when they were "recovered" ? Did they change on there way back? And one more simple question? They seemed pretty fresh. All smiles, no obvious signs of fatigue? These men smiled and waived as if they we're on a parade float. I see world class athletes more tired after practice let alone a full game. These guys were in their late 40's and older...just wondering.

[rranswerman]

@vealshanker The "screaming" was someone in the Houston control room giving a cheer at the confirmation of a successful landing. Yes they changed clothes during the flight. They take off in pressure suits but flew most of the flight in jump suits. As for them being able to wave, Isaac Newton was flying the craft home. They did not have to row, paddle, or push. They would have been affected by Earth's gravity after so many days weightless, but these men were in top shape and not all over 40.

[redslownight]

@vealshanker why would they be tired, they were sitting down during re entry...

[redslownight]

@datzfast ???? Where is the subject in that sentence?

[Collserra]

@vealshanker

No lunar rover was carried on apollo 14.

[Syphonaptera]

4.23...where is that yell coming from , like in a hollow room? Then , please help me , whatching the 14/15/16. moonlandings...there is a lot of moondust blasted away from the breakboosterrocket....where does that dust go to? In all pictures taken from the landers...the pods are sterile clean , no dust spreading , no blastcrater. Please please help me.

[TheJomogogo]

@datzfast

Kid WTF are you on about? "No video of a footprint, only pictures?" fucking retarded. they got videos of people walking on the moon, why are you claiming that because they didn't run THE FUCK up behind each other and video their ass that that somehow means something? Idiot.

[datzfast]

@TheJomogogo yea but you cant show me a video foot print either lol so piss off.

[datzfast]

@TheJomogogo point? what point? NASA cant vidotape a foot print. No point

its queer, dont you think?i think its queer.

[Syphonaptera]

@datzfast I never mentioned NO footprints UNDER the lander! Are you nuts? The rocketengine should create a crater with dust , no matter how tender the landing was. Besides , we can all witness "dust" flying around just befor the landing so marks should be visible OR.....it wasn't a MOON-landing that was presented as such...

[nesokretep]

@Syphonaptera -- yes, you can plainly see in any of the photos of the landers that the dust was blown away from under the exhaust nozzle. The still photos are completely consistent with the videos of the descent engine blowing dust.

And the LRO photos are consistent with them as well.

The landings were real.

[Syphonaptera]

@nesokretep I think you miss a point, if there is clearly flying dust visible ..BUT NOT a single speck of dust on the landers pods....then HOW should this fact be a prove of a landing??? . Kind of a VERY illogic method of reasoning from your side....

[nesokretep]

@Syphonaptera -- Yes. It is logical.

Once the dust starts flying away, WHY should it stop at the lander's foot pads which are only 10 feet or so away from the nozzle? What would stop it there?

Bill Kaysing (original author of the "there should be dust on the foot pads) argument said: "The dust would billow up and land on the foot pads."

He didn't understand that it is impossible for blown dust to "billow" in a vacuum.

[Syphonaptera]

@nesokretep It doesn't matter if dust "billows" in vacuum. It cares that there are NO trails and signs of ANY dust blown away by the lander's engine...

[nesokretep]

@Syphonaptera -- Look at any of the pictures of the areas under any of the landers. You can clearly see the difference in the surface texture. The area away from the lander is covered in a fine layer of dust. The outline of small rocks & pebbles are blurred by the layer of dust. The area under the lander is hard and clean with surface cracks visible that you don't see in other areas.

Look at pictures taken from orbit. The radial pattern of blown dust is clearly visible.

[Syphonaptera]

@nesokretep Well, I think I have to except the fact you are seeing things NOBODY can see (dust trails by rocket exhaust) ......Cheers hawk eye.

[nesokretep]

@Syphonaptera -- If you would like to discuss a specific picture of the area under the lander, we can do that. I can point out what is clearly visible in any of them.

But again ... you are changing the subject.

One subject at a time before you start running away from them.

WHY would there be dust on the foot pads??

[Syphonaptera]

@nesokretep 0,5 seconds before any lander hits the moon surface there's clearly moon dust blasted away and YOU do not even remotely think there will be dust on the pods then?Please explain WHY SHOULDN't there be moondust on the pods?? Please provide me the URL of pictures were dust-trails and and blast-craters are clearly visible. Thank you for your time again buddy.

[nesokretep]

@Syphonaptera -- One thing at a time. I never said "blast craters are clearly visible." There should, in fact, be NO "blast crater."

But first, as I keep saying ... your original statement about dust on the foot pads.

Yes, at 5 seconds before the landers hit the surface, you see dust flying away.

It looks like it is going kind of fast, doesn't it?

Now, as I have already asked at least 4 times now: WHY would it STOP at the footpads?

[nesokretep]

@Syphonaptera -- You are the one who started with the definite assertion that there should be dust on the foot pads of the lander.

All I am asking is WHY should the dust stop and land on the foot pads? What would make it stop there?

You cannot say "I saw a car driving on the street near my house, therefore there should be a car parked in my driveway." That's silly. You have to have some reason why you think it should be in a particular place.

So why would the dust land on the foot pads?

[Syphonaptera]

@nesokretep The pods their-self must block dust just before touchdown, it would be an unknown phenomenon if there would be NOT a single speck of moon dust on the pods. In fact I only witness STERILE CLEAN pods when looking clips and pics .

[Syphonaptera]

@nesokretep Provide me the URL of the pics that have a clear difference of surface texture.....Provide me the URL of those PICS please! I do not see any radial pattern of blown dust on ANY pic r video of any moon lander. I clearly see moon dust being sprayed in a radial pattern , even 0.5 second befor the lander touches the surface .

[nesokretep]

Look up these photos:

AS11-40-5850 Hard surface cleared of dust

AS11-40-5853 Dust-covered surface not under lander.

AS11-40-5858 Lines in the sand across the center of the picture proceeding from the area of the nozzle out to the left.

AS11-40-5864 Cracks & ridges in surface blown clean of dust

AS11-40-5870 Smooth surface with slight rills in lines away from the nozzle. Surface in the distance away from lander is rough and not blown clean.

[Syphonaptera]

@nesokretep haahaahaa, WHERE IS THE DUST ON THE PODS??? WHERE ARE THE DUST TRAILS ON THESE PICS??? NOWHERE DUDE , NOWHERE , NOWHERE!!!!!!!! AS11-40-5853 NO DUST ON THE PODS! FOR THE OTHERS NO BLASTCRATER NOR BLAST TRAILS!!!!!!!!!!!! OMG, MY FRIENDS ARE GOING TO LOVE THIS, THANKS

[Syphonaptera]

@nesokretep YOU KNOW WHAT, FIRST I HAD TO LAUGH , NOW I FEEL INSULTED BY YOU!!! If you are seeing the things nobody on this world is able to see on these pictures than you are using mind expanding substances....

[nesokretep]

@Syphonaptera -- I'm sorry to see that it looks like you're going a little nutty with the all-capitals and tons of exclamation points and everything. Try to not hurt yourself.

But if you can settle down from your convulsive fit and try thinking a little maybe you can follow some logic. It looks doutbful, but maybe you can try ...

[nesokretep]

I'll keep it simple for you and give you just two things:

(1) As I have explained a number of times now, there should be NO dust on the foot pads. I gave you a detailed explanation as to WHY there should be no dust on the foot pads, so you have no need to be surprised about dust on the foot pads. Going on like an idiot about the "DUST ON THE PODS" really does you no good. Read my explanation and tell me what you think is wrong with it.

[nesokretep]

(2) With the information of the size of the nozzle and the weight of the lander (go look them up; they're easy to find) you can estimate for yourself that the pressure of the exhaust must have been about 1 1/2 pounds per square inch at the nozzle. It would have been less than that on the surface.

Get that?? Only 1 1/2 pounds per square inch. Your bicycle tire probably has about 50 times that much pressure. And don't bother saying how "idiotic" that sounds until you go and do the math.

[nesokretep]

(2) continued ... so with only 1 1/2 pounds per square inch of pressure, why are you expecting a "blast crater?"

And with that little pressure at the nozzle, there would be less than half of that much 10 feet away from the nozzle.

Why would you expect more than those 1/2 inch rills in the sand that you can, in fact, see in the photos?

Yes, it did not disturb the surface dust very much as far away from the nozzle as the foot pads are. With that little pressure, why would it?

[nesokretep]

@Syphonaptera -- And yes, it DOES matter if dust billows in a vacuum because that relates to your original statement. That you claim "it doesn't matter" only points out the fact that you are trying to change the subject because your first attempt failed.

So back to YOUR first argument:

WHY would dust stop at the footpads? What would make it land there?

It's your argument. You even called me "illogical" regarding it. So I'd like to see your logic.

Why would there be dust on the footpads?

[Syphonaptera]

@nesokretep If you watch the landing clip ( and I mean WATCH, not just look at it) you see even dust being blasted away after the lander is on the ground. Now, take a camera tripod, attach a football on top of it and drop it from 4 feet hight onto a fine-dusted sand surface, you want to bet with me there is NO fine-dust on those tripods???? Let me clear it out for you, it is as if the landers simply were stationed on a surface (the moon).

[nesokretep]

@Syphonaptera -- Why do you tell me to "WATCH" the dust being blown from the nozzle?

*I* pointed out to YOU that dust was being blasted so quickly away from the nozzle.

My question remains: If dust was being blasted so quickly away, then HOW would it STOP and land on the foot pads.

Look up this photo: AS11-40-5865. The pad is dish-shaped. Dust will be coming up from the surface and be deflected away from the thing by the edge. There is nothing to make it stop and land there.

[nesokretep]

@Syphonaptera -- Dust on the moon CANNOT act like dust on Earth. It cannot billow up and hover and drop over something like you see a dust cloud act on Earth.

Dust that starts moving away from the surface under the nozzle MUST move in a smooth, parabolic arc up, across and over the surface, and then eventually land. If it is going perhaps one or several meters per second away from the surface under the nozzle, it cannot stop and land on the foot pads.

[Beamshipcaptain]

I wtched this all LIVE, in the 1970s. When the USA had GUTS enough to explore space. Private industry can do it better, cheaper, safer faster than governments. Which just want to spend money and irreplacable lives fighting wars.

[RickyJ46]

As amazing now as it was then...

[brut1973]

This video if you say is real explains perfectly why I dont believe we where there.

The Moon looks like swiss cheese for a reason.

There is no atmosphere to slow or stop asteroids from hitting the surface at 10,000 mph.

They say that when you see a falling star, its the size of a grain of rice so you can see in the moons craters that asteroids had to be much bigger. Tell would you go out and stand on the Moon where there is NO atmophere to protect you. THE PROOF IS IN THE MOON

[tubesteakbooky]

idiots.

[Synthetrix]

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, or LROC, was able to image five of the six Apollo sites, with the remaining Apollo 12 site expected to be photographed in the coming weeks. Future LROC images from these sites will have two to three times greater resolution.

Sorry conspiracy theory losers, you're 15 minutes of fame are up!

[hhalano]

LROC pictures point at a dot on a map of craters and call it the Apollo landing site. Great proof. We must have landed there. LOL!

[datzfast]

@Synthetrix you comment has had a birthday and you pictures are missing. all the LROC that N A S A released photos were proven to be digital manipulated they added words and arrows then put it through a program that distorted the words and arrows how damn stupid was that. i guess they thought we didn't own computers.

[Lookup2Wakeup]

@Synthetrix Were these pictures ever released? i can't find them. Thanks.

[klebehss]

every thing is good until I heard a strange voice (or sound) at 4.25 ! doesn't look like someone using a radio or talkywalky, looks more like someone screeming in a room...strange

[casio124478]

Wow, this starts at altitude of 2,000 feet and as we go all the way to ground level the surface features remain EXACTLY the same scale.

I've tried to point this out to my brother and he refuses to see it but it is so blatantly obvious- it is just fake- common sense is all you need to see it.

[rranswerman]

Sorry, but the craters do grow larger as the craft (slowly) descends and moves forward relative to the ground surface. The increase in size is not dramatic, but measurable if you pause the clip and use a scale.

[jani963]

the answer is very simple. the cameras they are using for here are 16mm cameras. normal eyes/tv is 50mm. they used 16 so they get a big wide view off everything. this makes the picture wide and the object dont seem normal. ESPECIALLY when you are coming closer to it and moving around on the screen.

[Lopkop19]

yeah because all the meteorite craters on the moon are of EXACTLY the same size, aren't they?

[TuxedoBlackFilms]

no, actually they aren't.

[OrangeSFO]

Casio (you fucking BOZO)...look at any number of aircraft landing videos on youtube shot from the cockpit and ask yourself why in many of them--while landing at 120 to 180 mph-- they seem to be barely moving at touchdown (continued...)

[OrangeSFO]

(continued...) or why a 8000 foot runway doesnt look nearly that long....its BECAUSE OF THE CAMERA USED AND WHAT TYPE OF LENS/ZOOM IS ENGAGED. next time youre riding in a car, put a pair of binoculars up to your eyes and look forward. Lenses change scale and perception of speed . In the meantime--  Grow the fuck up. You're not that smart.

[TheJomogogo]

You must be fuckass retarded, it does no such thing. Hoaxtards see what they want to see.

[personzorz]

@casio124478 The craters on the moon and other airless bodies are roughly fractal - they look similar at all scales, from thousand mile wide basins to milimeter wide pits on the rocks, from objects of all size striking the surface. You do see individual features get larger as they descend.

[redslownight]

@casio124478 no it doesnt....are you blind??

[Frye666]

I met Ed Mitchell last August. very cool old hero.

[rranswerman]

For the win? I had to ask my daughter what FTW meant.

[WatchingViking]

edgar mitchell ftw

[dwmzmm]

I remember this flight very well; even got up early that morning to watch live coverage of the landing. The landing radar was very balky; wouldn't lock on when commanded but finally did at the last minute. Nearly caused an abort.

[zorbazig]

These guys REALLY had guts !!! Absolutely amazing !!!

[tubage07]

Very cool.  What a thrill it must have been to take that ride.

[TerryTAnderson]

Shepard sure was a lucky sonuvagun to get this flight!

[jamesrobert2]

Smooth. Am curious as to the big crater near the end- triplet.

[toptenmaterial]

what a previledge

[verrynice001]

Yes verry nice

[verrynice001]

Yes verry nice

[mason104]

there were plenty of bolders to look out for.