Just playing devil's advocate here: She said BURN crater, not BLAST crater. The criticism is that there are no BURN marks, not that there isn't a hole in the ground. Even if the psi is equivalent to a footstep, I'd expect there to be burn marks on the ground if my shoes were on fire.
Again, I'm just curious to see the explanation, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just wish you addressed the actual criticism, though I'm sure it was by accident.
@shanedk Oh wow... DUH! Sorry, derp on my part. So the thrust engines don't use combustion? Now that I think about it that's rather obvious, but what DID they use?
And again, not a conspiracy theorist, I'm a fan who noticed you didn't address QUITE the same criticism the video was making.
Actually, it is a well known fact that Somalia was the first to land on the Moon... back in the days. And Kennedy wasn’t shot; that too was a hoax to enable room for loopy conspiracy theorizers.
I have nothing to add to the video aside from the fact that users like Astrobrant2, lukequixotesanjose and philwebb59 are debunking every single claim of the moon hoaxers. With their most discussed adversary being user WhiteJarrah since he has an impressive amount of video's about the moon landings being hoaxes, touches the most subjects and tries to defend all claims.
If the moon landings were faked, it most likely would have instigated a full scale nuclear war! The soviet mindset would not have just meekly gone along with the insult!
@PavelPower its people with very little minds believe whatever is thrown at them. hell if i told them that chuck Norris is god then they would all believe me. its all a mind trick.
You'd think they'd have to concede defeat simply due to the fact that a semi-decent telescope can see the landing site, along with the debris and marks left behind.
"no stars" has always been the first, and dumbest, newb complaint. Its given by wannabess too dumb to ask REAL photographers before barging in like a dufus pretending they're the first person ever to bring it up.
REAL photographers know about big words like "exposure time" and "shutter speed," which is why we listen to educated folk, not youtube wankers who cut and paste dork webpages pretending to be clever. ;)
If the pros dont have a problem, we're not listening to the amatuers.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO DEBUNK THE IDIOTIC THEORY THAT THE "MOON ROCKS" ARE FROM ANTARCTICA.
Do you Hoaxtards even KNOW how the moon was formed? IT WAS FORMED FROM THE SAME GAS CLOUD AS THE EARTH, FUCKING IDIOTS. IT HAS SIMILAR ROCKS ON IT, OF COURSE, FUCKING DOUCHEFAGS.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
OMG the logic this guy attempts to spit out is that of a 4th grade child. I'm not going to waste my time pointing out all the pathetic statements he has made.
At least creationists can be victims of childhood indoctrination. People who claim the moon landing was fake or that the holocaust never happened... do they have ANY excuse?
I see Muse still has no answer on the rock issue. Oh and speaking of the Rock's; if the Moon has no magnetic field, why are the lunar samples brought back by Apollo magnetized? Hmmm...what scientific BS answer are you going to come up with this time?
"I see Muse still has no answer on the rock issue"
What "issue?" I havent posted here for months.
That makes it far more likely that this has less to do with any rocks and more with your juvenile need to get revenge for past insults in an argument long since forgotten by the REST of us....
Stop posting illiteracy, and you'll stop getting insulted.
"why are the lunar samples brought back by Apollo magnetized?"
EVERYTHING has a minor magnetic field you dumbass.
Then I'm SO glad you felt the need to bring it up. It was obviously such a great concern that you cant even be bothered to repeat it. ;) If you think its no big deal, I fail to see why we should think otherwise.
"why are the lunar samples brought back by Apollo magnetized? "
The magnetic field of large planetary objects is generated by their core, which is filled with liquid metallic magma which rotates, creating the field.
Since moonrocks dont come from the core, they can be magnetic or not however they like, irrelevant from the core.
Which the rest of us learned in the 9th grade. : /
Arent you glad you looked for trouble anon? Came back after months of silence just in time to look like an idiot.
Here's an easier way to justify the magnetism: The rocks aren't moon rocks at all. Instead they are Earth rocks incognito and were part of the hoax.
And to answer your question Yes. I'm glad I looked for trouble. Afterall, any opportunity to show you have no qualms about lying is a glad moment. 9th grade...bahaaa. Fool. Hey spread..what's hat thing in your mouth. OMG it's your foot!
As long as its entirely dependent on prejudicial bias and assumption, you're obviously all for it. ;)
But those darn fake rocks, called fake by geologists you dont have, in reports you've never seen, by analysis you cant duplicate, and only mentioned by kooks who arent qualified?
THOSE fake rocks? ;)
Glad we brought that up. I was afraid you were going to make this up as you went along. ;)
See folks....this is the Muse we know and love. Catch him in a mistruth and he responds, not by admitting he's wrong, but rather by just glossing it over. How can you trust anything from a guy who says he learned something in the 9th grade with all the conviction of the world behind him, only to find out that it's still a mystery to non-youtube scientists. You know what muse, maybe you should just take your lack of credibility someplace else. Or stay here so we can continue to laugh.
But I remember you shooting your own argument in the foot by saying "MIT students say the moon was ONCE magnetic."
You sure dropped that point real quick. Why was that? ;)
", only to find out that it's still a mystery to non-youtube scientists."
I'm sorry but whatever you've been reading is retarded. I have Earth Sci texts that say the moon HAD a magnetic field. You're just bumbling thru trying to use big words you dont understand.
I didn't drop it goob, I used it to make my point. Because if MIT students are tying to make sense of it I have to believe that it didnt make sense in the first place or they wouldnt be wasting their time.
"whatever you've been reading is retarded" I told you I read it at:
SPACEdotCOM on 1/15/09
Which said: 'Moon rocks delivered to Earth by Apollo astronauts held a MYSTERY that has PLAGUED SCIENTISTS since the 1970s: Why were the lunar rocks magnetic?'
The way you are writing, you make it like the moon had a known molten core and that it was common knowledge taught in 9th grade. If that was the case, why were scientists "Plagued" by the question since the 70's? What year were you in 9th?
My education stretched over the 70's and 80's, but I think this entire issue is worthless. You cant just cut a paste a singular article out of literal nowhere on a topic you're not experienced or educated in and then yell "LOOK AT ME!" in a crowded room expecting anyone to care. You are spinning a transparent stall tactic to avoid admitting inexperience.
They're magnetic?
SO WHAT? Do you even have a follow-up point, or knew that you should have had one? What if anything is the problem?
While the magnetism is a surprising feature, it doesn't make sense from a hoax perspective, SINCE it is a surprising feature. If your trying to make a counterfeit, you want it to fit expectations. Magnetism is an easy property to detect, not a good thing for a counterfeit, definitely when people don't expect it. So actually, the fact that an easy to detect property doesn't fit the predictions, is actually FURTHER evidence these came from the moon, not to mention the matching Soviet samples.
Hey this is just one more nail in the NASA coffin as far as I'm concerned. First I directed you to a report that said the Moon rocks brought back by apollo were like Earth rocks. Now we find out they have a magenetic field(like Earth rocks). Lets face it, theyre examining these items thinking they came from the moon and at each turn theyre shocked to find earthlike similarity and go about theorizing why that is. History will have the final say so, but it's not looking good for NASA so far.
"Now we find out they have a magenetic field(like Earth rocks)"
I'm sorry but you're arguing ten years past your education.
And you admitted this LAST TIME, remember?
The moon WAS magnetic, but not anymore. Therefore some rocks can be magnetic and some cant.
What is your Earth sci experience or education? What is your geology experience or education? You simply arent smart enough to know what you're talking about, and you admitted that last year.
And now there's WATER on the Moon too! And not just in one spot either. Funny how your "Hundreds of Geologists" studying thousands of samples from the Lunar Surface including a large amount of Lunar dust, found no traces of Water. As Loperspest said, "trying to make a counterfeit, you want it to fit expectations"; well here the expectation was that there would be No Water, and so the hoax rocks had no water, but now modern science says there is Water. Thus proving the hoax. The End.
So, if someone goes to a desert and collects sand and rocks, the fact that there's no water in them proves that they weren't on Earth, which has water over two-thirds of its surface.
Having no water content and no measurable content of H2O are two different things. Answer my question. Are you saying that you can find rocks on earth without measurable levels of H20? Because as I recall your argument to me about Moon rocks is that they have no measurable level of oxygen. AKA the O in H2O. That was your proof they were lunar. Now if you can find waterless rocks on earth aren't you proving that earth rocks can be used to fake moon rocks? If not, now that we know there's(con't)
Once again you can't answer a simple question. And why? Because you know the answer means your wrong on the other front. You cant have it both ways. So instead you avoid the question by side stepping it with an famous shane insult bomb.
water on the moon how do you explain the absence of H2O in lunar rock samples. Many of which may have come from even deeper depths then 50 feet as impact castoffs from meteors striking the moon. Or do you think rocks on the lunar surface just grew loose in place?
EXACTLY....and in order to have water you have to have what...Class spell it with me...O-X-Y-G-E-N which as you recall you said there was no oxygen in any lunar rock sample which was how you were trying to prove they werent fakes produced on earth. Now that you admit the opposite it means the lunar samples may have been faked after all. You can't have it both ways.
Idiot, there's a difference between ELEMENTAL oxygen and oxygen gas. Oxygen gas is unstable, and so we shouldn't expect any on the moon. The reason WHY it's unstable is that the ELEMENTAL oxygen used to make it gets combined with other atoms to make other molecules--LIKE WATER.
We would expect the amount of elemental oxygen in the rocks to be roughly the same as it is on Earth. And it IS. In fact, there's a LOT of anorthite on the moon, which is CaAl2Si2O8.
...I haven't read the comment thread, but upon reading this comment from you about Oxygen, Shane, I find myself wondering: "what the bloody hell does the moon's composition have to do with whether or not we landed on the moon; whatever could have been transferred, if any from the landing would have been minute and that's being generious."...
Actually it had to do with the fact that Shane once said the moon rocks were devoid of oxygen hence how we know they are moon rocks. My point was that if there is water on the moon and that water was there since the moons creation there must have been oxygen present, therefore how can moonrocks be devoid of oxygen? Now perhaps that water is a result of some outside source, like a comet, but for now its unclear how it got there.
"we would expect the amount of elemental oxygen in the rocks to be roughly the same as it is on Earth. And it IS"
correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the reason *why* we would expect that is because of the Giant Impact theory, which was composed *after* the moon rocks were discovered to have the same oxygen composition as earth?
That specific theory was formed after the moon landings, but the idea of the moon coming from the Earth in some form was accepted before the moon landings.
google "water in moon rocks" first result destroys your claim that they have no water.
Second google "water discovered on moon" first result is the LCROSS mission (which I did some work on) which found lots of water.
The difference between the two findings is LCROSS crashed a huge metal disk into a deep POLAR crater which was in permanent shadow to eject that water. The astronauts dug a few feet near the equator. Those are two TOTALLY different regions of the moon.
I forget exactly where the area was, but you're right, it was nowhere near where the astronauts landed, and at the bottom of a HUGE crater, nowhere near the surface where they would have found it.
Oh, and it's also NOT true that they found "no traces of water." Some of the moon rocks had water molecules trapped in beads formed by volcanic forces.
I think you guys missed the point. For a couple of smart guys you really just ...phew! The point was that for there to be water there must have been oxygen, and although I can't point to your specific comment you had stated there was no oxygen on the moon. Now if I took that the wrong way, and/ or didn't understand it I apologize. After all, Apollo rock isn't rock at all its petrified wood. Google petrified Apollo moon rock.
THE MOON COMES FROM THE EARTH. Get that through your stupid, thick head!
And it's NOT in ANY way petrified wood. You're talking about ONE case where the chain of custody was broken; you can NOT honestly extrapolate that to all of the moon rocks, which have been INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED as genuine.
A) I'm not challenging the origin of the moon. How simpleminded are you that you thought that was what I was doing?
B) Are you saying that neither Armstrong, Collins nor Aldrin were capable of identifying what a moon rock looks like? I though you claimed they're the ones who went to the moon and got it?
A) You INSISTED that there couldn't be molecules with oxygen on the moon because there's no oxygen gas. I pointed out that the moon comes from the Earth and should have the same make-up, including molecules containing oxygen. Now, you're hand-waving. What a LIAR.
B) This has NOTHING to do with Collins, Armstrong, or Aldrin. They are NOT experts in this area. STOP LYING.
I insisted that moon rocks came from the moon but werent necessarily collected on the landing you claim occurred in July 69. And suggested that they may have been manmade fakes. Your retort said they had no oxygen so they must come from the moon.
And the reason it has to do with the astronots is because they presented the wood chip as a moon rock. So YES they collected the stupid thing they SHOULD have known the difference. Surely you'd agree.
There are a LOT of reasons they couldn't be fakes. And again, there is a difference between oxygen gas and elemental oxygen that is part of other molecules.
And you've been corrected about the wood thing MANY times. You persisting in these things long after being corrected makes you a LIAR.
What do you mean many times? This is the first time I ever mentioned it. Maybe you heard it from someone else. I only found that story out the day I wrote it. And I'm not insinuating all moon rocks are fake. Rather I'm pointing out the fact that people who allegedly collected the rocks and then presented a piece of wood as a moon rock probably should have known better. And it lends credence to the theory that they didnt make that first trip as I have previously stated.
The Apollo moon rocks did contain water but it was inconclusive because the samples may have been contaminated. The recent tests have conclusively proved the existence of moon water, not discovered it for the first time.
I think you may have replied to the wrong comment. I understand and agree with you 100% that a lack of oxygen gas has nothing to do with the presence of other oxygen molecules such as water, and of course water has been found.
Yes, that was supposed to be a reply to anon1104's post beginning, "Actually it had to do with the fact that Shane once said the moon rocks were devoid of oxygen..."
And I also acknowledged this fact and apologized for not knowing the difference prior to Shane's explaining it properly to me so I'm not really sure why he's being so biting about it. Sorry you got caught in the crossfire Aerosteon
Americans are very stupid and are laughed at by Russia still to this day that Americans were fooled and still fooled. Just look how stupid this guy in the video is. Makes me laugh...
uh, actually Russia confirmed the landings. they would have jumped all over a fake landing. there are fewer Russians who believe the hoax than Americans.
do you really think that 1960s/70s USSR wouldn't show the landings to be fake if they could? they couldn't, though.
yeah, the world verified the landings. there were people tracking the crafts from launch, some professional, some not.
the only ones that didn't get the memo were conspiracy theorists.
some citizens might have decided that, after all no nation is immune to conspiracy theorists, but the soviet government never claimed it was fake. russia just suddenly decided they weren't interested in the moon, if they ever really were, and kind of pushed it out of sight.
conspiracy theories about landing on the moon began from the moment they stepped on the moon, and likely before that. again, they never came out saying it was fake, and certainly didn't have any evidence of it.
Russia did Not decide they werent interested in the moon. They tried more times than America will ever know and concluded that it is not possible by any means. The firsts ones to know NASA faked it were Russian Scientists.
"Wrong the First Conspiracy Theorists were the Russians."
Thats great Timmy! All you have to do is post EVEN ONE news article to prove it!
Considering your 0% success rate so far, I predict you'll fall flat on your face again, and quickly run away crying exactly as you did on all the other boards where you were asked to prove anything you said.
Proof is hard for you isnt it? Its far easier to make moronic claims when no one challenges your incompetent "facts."
What News article? For what? And what 0% success rate? I have already told you what the facts are. You disagree with them. You can not disagree with Facts as they are not your Opinion. You have to prove to us that they went to the Moon and you have failed each time. You would have been better off as a You Tube character claiming the opposite.
After weeks of silence, congratulations for having nothing better to do on Christmas Eve than recycle your moronic ignorance. I assure you, I HAD better things to do. ;)
"What News article?"
The one YOU HAVE TO HAVE TO PROVE THE RUSSIANS SAY WE FAKED IT. You said the russians know its fake. WELL HOW DO YOU KNOW? Do you have a witness, an article? Of course not. You just throw out dumb posts pretending you're not faking it.
Actually Russians wouldn't have said Jack-Sh*t because they had a few dead cosmonauts floating around the moon in their own failed capsule. Reminder: Aldrin & co. reported seeing a UFO pacing them at the moon. Either it was aliens or dead Russians that made it there first but something went wrong. It wouldve been a National embarrassment for Russia.
Well thank god the dead russians have been kept such a total secret. Can you imagine how bad security must be for every hoaxaholic dufus to make posts about it on public boards?
Heres a little info a lot of people don't know. When Apollo 13 exploded, the debris cloud could be seen from ground based astronomers. Also, the TLI burn could bee seen with the naked eye from people in Australia. Did they fake all of that ?
BTW, how the heck can any one of you listen to the guy whine like a girl with his screechy little voice? Sheezz even if he were telling the truth whatsoever here his voice grats on your ears like a kid scratching a chalkboard with nail file!! The only person I can compair him to for shear annoyance is that pitchman you see on TV all the time pitching OXI-Clean! Find another so called D-bunker please...
This guy is obviously smoking dope or on major meds or both. Ya, rocket engines don't leave craters or marks and don't raise dist clouds and are akin to one walking at one ps1..! Maybe if he whines a little more some little girl will listen to him ya think. LMAO!
Mister shanedk seems to have a conveniently limited understanding of the effect of sustained rocket thrust psi over and above that of a simple fraction-second one-off boot tread.
They're poles apart. He claims impartiality in his loud commentary , but has he ever questioned NASA on anything ?
I'd prefer a reasonable reason as to WHY they should be questioned, other than "THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO STEAL OUR CHILDREN AND RAPE OUR MOTHERS!!!" juvenile fear-mongering.
It's going to send more of your sons abroad to get butchered and maimed for life in phony wars based on lies, just so as their cronies in defence, oil & construction can get rich on the back of it ... that's all.
And if it's capable of THAT, then I'm SURE it's just got to be squeaky clean on all the other info' it puts out too, heh.
Bleat on, STM/Shane - your dangerously naive, blinkered & brainwashed ilk are part of the problem, not the solution.
"It's going to send more of your sons abroad to get butchered and maimed for life in phony wars based on lies, just so as their cronies in defence, oil & construction can get rich on the back of it ... that's all."
How does the *MOON LANDING* have anything to do with the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.?!?!?!! Question the WARS, not the *MOON LANDING* where the SCIENCE comes down hard on its being REAL!!!!
do you know if any pictures of our stuff on the moon have been taken by hubble? I've always wondered about this. After all it's our stuff! We should be keeping a very close eye on it just in case some of our friends from other worlds might think of taking it.
Hubble doesn't have anywhere near the resolution for this. With a resolution of 0.05 arcseconds, at the moon's distance (call it 400,000km) that means it can only resolve objects if they're at least 96 meters wide. I've heard some hoaxers claim a .015 arcsecond resolution for Hubble (with no source cited, natch), but even that couldn't resolve anything less than 29 meters wide.
Your 1.5 psi figure for the engine nozzle is perhaps calculated on the basis of equal thrust from the burn chamber spreading evenly on exiting over its circular outlet?
If you actually see a picture of the LM or CSM engine being bench-tested in a vacuum you'll notice a narrow central column of what looks like very intense thrust within the overall wide thrust cone.
It's therefore possible the 2-3,000lbs LM thrust was concentrated in a c. one sq ft vertical column = 144sq inches = 15-20psi.
1.5psi is a MAXIMUM value, based on the weight of the craft and the area on the nozzle. Over on ClaviusDOTorg, a rocket scientist has actually done the calculation, including thrust variances and accelerants, and got a figure of .9psi.
According to the photos yes , sir. But your unquestioning, proselytizing and slavish promotion of all NASA archive material as 100 % genuine , honest and gospel makes open and intelligent debate with you impossible. You never question a military agency's honesty .. ever.
That alone invalidates completely your claimed impartiality , sir. You are at least as brainwashed as you claim those who oppose you are.
Oh, and by the way, car tires are regularly inflated to 35psi or higher, far greater than your 15-20psi. How many cars end up with four blast craters underneath them?
thrust cone in vacuum is actually round, because there isn't any air pressure to prevent it from rapidly spreading. in fact, in the nasa skylab (i think), they lit a candle, and the flame was a round bubble instead of a tall column of flame.
in addition, if you ever see a saturn v launch, as the rocket rises skyward after a minute or two, the exhaust from the F-1 engines start to expand outwards from its central column.
icyplanetnhc; you need to take a close look at the photo ( on clavius last time I checked) of CM/LM rocket motor undergoing bench-test in a vacuum chamber.
The high velocity thrust plume is clearly conical with a narrow central column which likely accounts for a high percentage of the overall thrust figure of the engine.
I think you may have been overly influenced by various artists' impressions of sundry landing craft.
This is one bit of pseudoscience that confuses me more than many others. I can understand that a fantasy-prone person might wish to believe in things like alien visitation or psychic powers, but where's the allure of believing that one of the greatest adventures in human history was a hoax? What's the attraction? They seem to want to believe in fantastic things, so why do they dismiss this fantastic story? Just because it's true? Strange people.
okay, my vids up. Let's try to use the orientation I've used when referring to which window is which so that we may all be on the same page. Other than that, it should speak for itself, but I welcome any comments you may have, except with regards to the quality. It's obviously not at the level Shane is capable of producing, but it gets the point across.
... looking aft with the camera oriented the way you suggest ?
Your video is less conclusive than my own. At least mine showed that the LEM is most certainly visible and it would appear toward the lower portion of the windows because it's docked onto the nose and the heads of the astronauts are higher than the centre-line when in their couches.
Not forgetting that it showed that there ARE reflections on the windows even though they are AR coated but the video also showed the chromatic effect from the AR coating making the reflection appear very blue.
I yield the point about reflections. They are possible, but minimal. According to NASA:
Despite the fact that the windows contain anti-reflective coatings, lighting conditions are such that reflections of the spacecraft interior are often photographed. In a frame from 16mm data acquisition camera film showing reflections of an astronaut's spacesuit. The first reflection shows the spacesuit as bright white; the second, a less bright reflection from an interior window surface is recorded as blue.
It's impotant to note that THEY (not I) point out that there would be a duplicate image just like my expert photographer suggested. And also note it says a 2nd reflection on the interior window appears as blue. The image we see has no duplicate and is anything but blue. Indicating further that this is an exterior object.
Keep in mind though that the couches are stowable, so unless evident on film that they are out, its possible they were away. Also the angle the couches is at is more like a / and less like a | so the feet dont necessarily point towards the nosecone, but rather more towards the sextant on the bottomside of the craft using my orientation as a base.
I've been through the majority of your posts until I made this statement:
"you have clearly demonstrated that you are scientifically illiterate, gullible, irrational, unwilling to understand, hyperfixated on nonsense and abusive in the face of the truth. These are the hallmarks of a classic kook."
I think I maybe confused someone else's posts with some of your own. I have not found you to be abusive. Mildly insulting and showing your exasperation from time to time but not really abusive.
Apology accepted on the basis that both of your premises (or conditional clauses) were true.
So, right now I'm not 100% sure of which window is being viewed from (although I have a fair idea). I'm not 100% sure of the orientation of the astronaut filming and which way he is holding the camera.
I accept your earlier description of approximately how the camera is being handled and moved around to keep Earth in shot (for the argument)...
I'd like to draw your attention to the terminator. It appears at the bottom, the top and the sides during the full sequence of clips. If we try to use the last known position of the terminator as a reference (before the final zoom out and we see our "object") we might be able to extrapolate from there. Remember, in space, there is no UP or DOWN. That's why I am referring my directions to the nose of the craft. They float about like sealions in a tank.
At the time they performed the TLI burn, they must have been facing prograde (nose forward) and they'd have been approximately on the opposite side of Earth to the moon when performing this burn.
They'd be approximately retrograde immediately after the CSM/LEM docking and if memory serves correctly, this would be soon after TLI burn. There may be no need for them to turn prograde again until the first mid-course correction, however studying the flight plan may give us a better idea.
What I can tell you for sure is that the LEM is most certainly visible from at least two of the five (if I recall) windows in the CSM.
I'm reasonably sure that it is visible from all of the windows... Just. If the camera is in the right place. My memory may not be serving correctly, it's been a long time since I flew the Apollo simulator but I know darned well that it is most certainly visible through the two either side of the hatch as the crosshairs in the window are used for LEM docking.
I can help with that. The window is oriented the same way as if you were standing in a room looking out a window. The nosecone is overhead. Above and slightly to the right is another window, much smaller and angled. Here's a link to an image which may help:
farm4.static.flickr.c om
/3011/2596637061_55c72a0dfc
.jpg?v=0
The window to the right should be where the filming was done. Note the hatch 2 windows to the left is a round porthole window. And the window in the middle is too small.
"The window is oriented the same way as if you were standing in a room looking out a window."
That offers nothing to the discussion, sadly.
However, if we use the picture you provided as a reference, you must remember that in that picture, the CSM is effectively sitting on its tail. An astronaut "sitting" in one of the "seats" would be lying on his back with his feet in the air and the cameraman would be looking at the top of the astronaut's head. (Launch position).
Those windows aren't like windows in a tower and an astronaut would stand and look out of them, they are more like the windshield and side windows of a car (although not quite because it's cone-shaped) which means looking out of the "side" windows will also mean looking somewhat forward (toward the nose).
Two of those windows are purely forward facing, but they are slightly odd shaped and I don't think the window in the clip is one of these.
I didn't realise, but I've just discovered that it is also possible to see one of the directional antennae from at least one of those "side windows". It's looking less and less likely that seeing something outside the window of Apollo 11 is suggestive of deception.
I still don't think it can be outside the window, since a) why didn't it partially cover the Earth earlier in the shot, and b) why is it fully lit when it wasn't on the sunny side and could only be lit by the light escaping the windows in the cabin?
And why did it get brighter EXACTLY when Collins removes the sun shield from the other window later in the shot?
You may need to seek a longer clip to ascertain the info. Ask Shane if he can provide you with it. I'd bet that he has the full clip on his hard drive. Perhaps he can upl
Just playing devil's advocate here: She said BURN crater, not BLAST crater. The criticism is that there are no BURN marks, not that there isn't a hole in the ground. Even if the psi is equivalent to a footstep, I'd expect there to be burn marks on the ground if my shoes were on fire.
Again, I'm just curious to see the explanation, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just wish you addressed the actual criticism, though I'm sure it was by accident.
RaustBD 1 week ago in playlist Bogosity
@RaustBD "I'd expect there to be burn marks on the ground if my shoes were on fire."
Well, you wouldn't have fire either, because THERE'S NO AIR ON THE MOON!
I mean really, do you have to be held by the hand and led?
shanedk 1 week ago
@shanedk Oh wow... DUH! Sorry, derp on my part. So the thrust engines don't use combustion? Now that I think about it that's rather obvious, but what DID they use?
And again, not a conspiracy theorist, I'm a fan who noticed you didn't address QUITE the same criticism the video was making.
RaustBD 1 week ago
@RaustBD "but what DID they use?"
Hydrazine and Aerozine 50.
shanedk 1 week ago
It is always daytime, everywhere, in space. The stars is one of the best proofs.
CNN911Fakes 3 months ago
no evidence, just insults, yay there ya go, the main stay of the propagandist shill... FAIL!!
SilverShamrock71 5 months ago
01:28 don't get excited retard!!
SilverShamrock71 5 months ago
This film points out how many gullible folks could see Sibrel's film and be impressed. It shows the power of film. Again ..great film man.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
Chuck Norris leaves a blast crater on every step on the Earth XD
Archy11102 1 year ago
@Archy11102
yeah, but not every one is Chuck Norris. *shrugs*
and frankly, Bruce Lee always left a Chixulub crater when he walked :P
Albukhshi 3 months ago
(applause!)
PCEggo 1 year ago
Actually, it is a well known fact that Somalia was the first to land on the Moon... back in the days. And Kennedy wasn’t shot; that too was a hoax to enable room for loopy conspiracy theorizers.
psilocyberspaceman 1 year ago
I have nothing to add to the video aside from the fact that users like Astrobrant2, lukequixotesanjose and philwebb59 are debunking every single claim of the moon hoaxers. With their most discussed adversary being user WhiteJarrah since he has an impressive amount of video's about the moon landings being hoaxes, touches the most subjects and tries to defend all claims.
tiaxanderson 1 year ago
If the moon landings were faked, it most likely would have instigated a full scale nuclear war! The soviet mindset would not have just meekly gone along with the insult!
cuteycindyhoney 1 year ago
They are crazy like moose and squirrel! LOL. I'm gonna use that line all the time from now on.
Omnywrench 2 years ago
@Omnywrench When they mean moose and squirrel its a reference to rocky and bullwinkle.
payot 1 year ago
@payot I know; that's why I love that line so much.
Omnywrench 1 year ago
Awesome! Great job on the video. Its a shame we are still talking about this kind of stuff.
PavelPower 2 years ago
@PavelPower its people with very little minds believe whatever is thrown at them. hell if i told them that chuck Norris is god then they would all believe me. its all a mind trick.
spirithunter89 11 months ago
Conversations here usualy seem to go, You say; "We have clear proof that we went to the moon."
To which the Moonhoaxer replies; "Nu'uh!"
You say; "What do you mean, Nu'uh?"
Moonhoaxer; "Aha! Stumped you there, eh?"
GumbaMasta 2 years ago
The video may be old, but is still worth watching - even several times just for fun to see "arguments" of hoax believers being debunked :-)
Ahhh, the pleasure of reason
GrandBeagle 2 years ago
ha!
"you are the weakest link; goodbye."
Win.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Comment removed
DeconstrainedUnbound 2 years ago
You say that, "all creationists are liars!"
However, I take offense to this and disagree.
it should be: "all creationists AND hoaxtards are liars."
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
You'd think they'd have to concede defeat simply due to the fact that a semi-decent telescope can see the landing site, along with the debris and marks left behind.
jmthetank 2 years ago
Behold, in this video, the debunking of the moon hoaxers--one of the FSM's biggest mistakes ever.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Biggest win has to be bringing in the Soviets. What better alibi can one get beyond their competition?
Altimadark 2 years ago
Best Moon landing Debunk I have seen 5/5 M8. I always wondered why the Soviets did not go with the theories.
MicrosoftsourceCode 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ha! Gomer, you are such a fucking tool.
believr77 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You're childish shouting debunks all your attempts at any points.
I would think that at least ONE shot of the stars would have been taken despite the clarity of the moon.
Sounds to me, like you're a little upset that your childhood fairytale has been exposed to all.
believr77 2 years ago
"no stars" has always been the first, and dumbest, newb complaint. Its given by wannabess too dumb to ask REAL photographers before barging in like a dufus pretending they're the first person ever to bring it up.
REAL photographers know about big words like "exposure time" and "shutter speed," which is why we listen to educated folk, not youtube wankers who cut and paste dork webpages pretending to be clever. ;)
If the pros dont have a problem, we're not listening to the amatuers.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"I would think that at least ONE shot of the stars would have been taken ..."
They took more than one, Apollo 16 has a small observatory which took nearly 200 pictures of the stars and the earth.
They also took long exposures the the solar corona which show stars.
ytmoog 2 years ago
watch astronauts gonne wild,,,,tell me if you think they tell the truth
tmdkaaskop 2 years ago
"astronauts gone wild"
Dork movies cannot be used as "evidence" for dork ideas.
That movie is retarded, and so is anyone who believes it.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
This is a great, to-the-point debunking of Moon conspiracies. I will make sure to show it to anyone I meet who might be taken in by such nonsense.
Ranillon 2 years ago
The flag in my video response is moving.
What do you think is moving it?
peace
travelstickcouk 2 years ago
Geez, people, WHY do you keep bringing up things that have been debunked for YEARS??? It would be hilarious if it weren't so idiotic...
The astronaut's elbow brushed near the flag, and static electricity pulled it towards him.
shanedk 2 years ago
I was unsure about the moon landings for ages but I'm satisfied for now after watching these vids.
fakesmith797 2 years ago
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO DEBUNK THE IDIOTIC THEORY THAT THE "MOON ROCKS" ARE FROM ANTARCTICA.
Do you Hoaxtards even KNOW how the moon was formed? IT WAS FORMED FROM THE SAME GAS CLOUD AS THE EARTH, FUCKING IDIOTS. IT HAS SIMILAR ROCKS ON IT, OF COURSE, FUCKING DOUCHEFAGS.
Gorilla199abuser 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
OMG the logic this guy attempts to spit out is that of a 4th grade child. I'm not going to waste my time pointing out all the pathetic statements he has made.
G0dsAssassin 2 years ago
I didn't know you could write in Russian. XD
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
At least creationists can be victims of childhood indoctrination. People who claim the moon landing was fake or that the holocaust never happened... do they have ANY excuse?
MotionFur 2 years ago 16
Childhood beatings? I don't know lol.
mecher3k 2 years ago 12
Agreed MotionFur.
Gorilla199abuser 2 years ago
@MotionFur
I hereby recite a line from the PC game Team Fortress 2 when I say this;
Demoman: They're drunk. They don't HAVE an excuse.
NUTCASE71733 5 months ago
Actually I think they would still hold on to all 500 stupid ideas.
sypher113 2 years ago 4
I hate conspiracy theories
gusgrissomismyhero 2 years ago 4
I love the incriminating sound effects for each video clip. Was that in the original?
lcbaudar 2 years ago
What would've been the point of faking the moon landing anyway? If we did, wouldn't we have faked a Mars landing by now???
blackcaptor2 3 years ago
I see Muse still has no answer on the rock issue. Oh and speaking of the Rock's; if the Moon has no magnetic field, why are the lunar samples brought back by Apollo magnetized? Hmmm...what scientific BS answer are you going to come up with this time?
anon1104 3 years ago
"I see Muse still has no answer on the rock issue"
What "issue?" I havent posted here for months.
That makes it far more likely that this has less to do with any rocks and more with your juvenile need to get revenge for past insults in an argument long since forgotten by the REST of us....
Stop posting illiteracy, and you'll stop getting insulted.
"why are the lunar samples brought back by Apollo magnetized?"
EVERYTHING has a minor magnetic field you dumbass.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
Hey the rock issue was what it was. You didnt answer it and thats your prob bob.
anon1104 3 years ago
"Hey the rock issue was what it was"
Then I'm SO glad you felt the need to bring it up. It was obviously such a great concern that you cant even be bothered to repeat it. ;) If you think its no big deal, I fail to see why we should think otherwise.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
you're welcome and invited to scroll back bub
anon1104 2 years ago
"why are the lunar samples brought back by Apollo magnetized? "
The magnetic field of large planetary objects is generated by their core, which is filled with liquid metallic magma which rotates, creating the field.
Since moonrocks dont come from the core, they can be magnetic or not however they like, irrelevant from the core.
Which the rest of us learned in the 9th grade. : /
Arent you glad you looked for trouble anon? Came back after months of silence just in time to look like an idiot.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
9th Grade! Wow? Did you just graduate 9th in the last 3 weeks?
Because acording to SPACEdotCOM on 1/15/09:
Moon rocks delivered to Earth by Apollo astronauts held a mystery that has plagued scientists since the 1970s: Why were the lunar rocks magnetic?
Earth's rotating, iron core produces the planet's magnetic field. But the moon does not have such a setup.
So MIT students trying to make sense of it have forwarded a theory that the moon had a molten core and dynamo of its own.
anon1104 3 years ago
Here's an easier way to justify the magnetism: The rocks aren't moon rocks at all. Instead they are Earth rocks incognito and were part of the hoax.
And to answer your question Yes. I'm glad I looked for trouble. Afterall, any opportunity to show you have no qualms about lying is a glad moment. 9th grade...bahaaa. Fool. Hey spread..what's hat thing in your mouth. OMG it's your foot!
anon1104 3 years ago
"Here's an easier way to justify the magnetism:"
As long as its entirely dependent on prejudicial bias and assumption, you're obviously all for it. ;)
But those darn fake rocks, called fake by geologists you dont have, in reports you've never seen, by analysis you cant duplicate, and only mentioned by kooks who arent qualified?
THOSE fake rocks? ;)
Glad we brought that up. I was afraid you were going to make this up as you went along. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago 4
See folks....this is the Muse we know and love. Catch him in a mistruth and he responds, not by admitting he's wrong, but rather by just glossing it over. How can you trust anything from a guy who says he learned something in the 9th grade with all the conviction of the world behind him, only to find out that it's still a mystery to non-youtube scientists. You know what muse, maybe you should just take your lack of credibility someplace else. Or stay here so we can continue to laugh.
anon1104 2 years ago
"Catch him in a mistruth"
I seem to have missed it. ;)
But I remember you shooting your own argument in the foot by saying "MIT students say the moon was ONCE magnetic."
You sure dropped that point real quick. Why was that? ;)
", only to find out that it's still a mystery to non-youtube scientists."
I'm sorry but whatever you've been reading is retarded. I have Earth Sci texts that say the moon HAD a magnetic field. You're just bumbling thru trying to use big words you dont understand.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"You sure dropped ..."
I didn't drop it goob, I used it to make my point. Because if MIT students are tying to make sense of it I have to believe that it didnt make sense in the first place or they wouldnt be wasting their time.
anon1104 2 years ago
"whatever you've been reading is retarded" I told you I read it at:
SPACEdotCOM on 1/15/09
Which said: 'Moon rocks delivered to Earth by Apollo astronauts held a MYSTERY that has PLAGUED SCIENTISTS since the 1970s: Why were the lunar rocks magnetic?'
The way you are writing, you make it like the moon had a known molten core and that it was common knowledge taught in 9th grade. If that was the case, why were scientists "Plagued" by the question since the 70's? What year were you in 9th?
anon1104 2 years ago
My education stretched over the 70's and 80's, but I think this entire issue is worthless. You cant just cut a paste a singular article out of literal nowhere on a topic you're not experienced or educated in and then yell "LOOK AT ME!" in a crowded room expecting anyone to care. You are spinning a transparent stall tactic to avoid admitting inexperience.
They're magnetic?
SO WHAT? Do you even have a follow-up point, or knew that you should have had one? What if anything is the problem?
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
" Why were the lunar rocks magnetic?"
Cos the moon had a molten core and a magnetic field.
" If that was the case, why were scientists "Plagued" by the question since the 70's?"
Could it be that that article is rubbish?
As it is the magnetisation in the rocks shows that the moon once had a magnetic field about 1 fiftieth as strong as the earths is today.
ytmoog 2 years ago 2
While the magnetism is a surprising feature, it doesn't make sense from a hoax perspective, SINCE it is a surprising feature. If your trying to make a counterfeit, you want it to fit expectations. Magnetism is an easy property to detect, not a good thing for a counterfeit, definitely when people don't expect it. So actually, the fact that an easy to detect property doesn't fit the predictions, is actually FURTHER evidence these came from the moon, not to mention the matching Soviet samples.
loperspest 2 years ago 3
"So MIT students trying to make sense of it have forwarded a theory that the moon had a molten core and dynamo of its own. "
So what, if anything, are you worried about? MIT students say the moon had a magnetic field (like every other large body) but doesn't now-
- or internet hoax kooks (who arent from MIT, or geologists, or physicists) say the rocks were fake.
Who would YOU believe? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago 4
Hey this is just one more nail in the NASA coffin as far as I'm concerned. First I directed you to a report that said the Moon rocks brought back by apollo were like Earth rocks. Now we find out they have a magenetic field(like Earth rocks). Lets face it, theyre examining these items thinking they came from the moon and at each turn theyre shocked to find earthlike similarity and go about theorizing why that is. History will have the final say so, but it's not looking good for NASA so far.
anon1104 2 years ago
"Now we find out they have a magenetic field(like Earth rocks)"
I'm sorry but you're arguing ten years past your education.
And you admitted this LAST TIME, remember?
The moon WAS magnetic, but not anymore. Therefore some rocks can be magnetic and some cant.
What is your Earth sci experience or education? What is your geology experience or education? You simply arent smart enough to know what you're talking about, and you admitted that last year.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago 3
"Hey this is just one more nail in the NASA coffin as far as I'm concerned"
No one asked you. ;)
Did your "report" explain why the moonrocks showed no signs of erosion, despite having come from Earth?
No signs or weathering?
No signs of water damage?
Or is the extend of your debate tactic to jsut cut and paste big words from OTHER peoples stuff and hope that no one asks you a tough question?
HUNDREDS of geologists have studied these rocks. I trust them more than you.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago 6
And now there's WATER on the Moon too! And not just in one spot either. Funny how your "Hundreds of Geologists" studying thousands of samples from the Lunar Surface including a large amount of Lunar dust, found no traces of Water. As Loperspest said, "trying to make a counterfeit, you want it to fit expectations"; well here the expectation was that there would be No Water, and so the hoax rocks had no water, but now modern science says there is Water. Thus proving the hoax. The End.
anon1104 2 years ago
So, if someone goes to a desert and collects sand and rocks, the fact that there's no water in them proves that they weren't on Earth, which has water over two-thirds of its surface.
Gotcha.
shanedk 2 years ago
Are you stating as a FACT that there are Earth rocks and sand which can be easily found in the desert with no measurable level of H20 in them?
If yes; back that up with evidence. Go on, I'll wait.
anon1104 2 years ago
Many tektites have no water content. Same with many basalts. And that's on a planet that's 2/3rds ocean and has rainfall practically EVERYWHERE.
Now, in an environment like the moon, why are you so surprised there's no water in the rocks?
Idiot.
shanedk 2 years ago
Having no water content and no measurable content of H2O are two different things. Answer my question. Are you saying that you can find rocks on earth without measurable levels of H20? Because as I recall your argument to me about Moon rocks is that they have no measurable level of oxygen. AKA the O in H2O. That was your proof they were lunar. Now if you can find waterless rocks on earth aren't you proving that earth rocks can be used to fake moon rocks? If not, now that we know there's(con't)
anon1104 2 years ago
Um, no, they are NOT two different things! H2O IS WATER!!!
Oxygen is O2, not H2O.
Idiot.
shanedk 2 years ago
Once again you can't answer a simple question. And why? Because you know the answer means your wrong on the other front. You cant have it both ways. So instead you avoid the question by side stepping it with an famous shane insult bomb.
anon1104 2 years ago
H2O IS water. No amount of your bleating will change that. THEY'RE THE EXACT SAME THING.
shanedk 2 years ago
water on the moon how do you explain the absence of H2O in lunar rock samples. Many of which may have come from even deeper depths then 50 feet as impact castoffs from meteors striking the moon. Or do you think rocks on the lunar surface just grew loose in place?
anon1104 2 years ago
Again, traces of water WERE found in beads formed by the volcanic forces resulting from huge impacts.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
shanedk 2 years ago
EXACTLY....and in order to have water you have to have what...Class spell it with me...O-X-Y-G-E-N which as you recall you said there was no oxygen in any lunar rock sample which was how you were trying to prove they werent fakes produced on earth. Now that you admit the opposite it means the lunar samples may have been faked after all. You can't have it both ways.
anon1104 2 years ago
Idiot, there's a difference between ELEMENTAL oxygen and oxygen gas. Oxygen gas is unstable, and so we shouldn't expect any on the moon. The reason WHY it's unstable is that the ELEMENTAL oxygen used to make it gets combined with other atoms to make other molecules--LIKE WATER.
We would expect the amount of elemental oxygen in the rocks to be roughly the same as it is on Earth. And it IS. In fact, there's a LOT of anorthite on the moon, which is CaAl2Si2O8.
Idiot.
shanedk 2 years ago
...I haven't read the comment thread, but upon reading this comment from you about Oxygen, Shane, I find myself wondering: "what the bloody hell does the moon's composition have to do with whether or not we landed on the moon; whatever could have been transferred, if any from the landing would have been minute and that's being generious."...
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
It's just the latest distraction.
shanedk 2 years ago
Actually it had to do with the fact that Shane once said the moon rocks were devoid of oxygen hence how we know they are moon rocks. My point was that if there is water on the moon and that water was there since the moons creation there must have been oxygen present, therefore how can moonrocks be devoid of oxygen? Now perhaps that water is a result of some outside source, like a comet, but for now its unclear how it got there.
anon1104 2 years ago
"we would expect the amount of elemental oxygen in the rocks to be roughly the same as it is on Earth. And it IS"
correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the reason *why* we would expect that is because of the Giant Impact theory, which was composed *after* the moon rocks were discovered to have the same oxygen composition as earth?
P.S. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
interstate317 2 years ago
That specific theory was formed after the moon landings, but the idea of the moon coming from the Earth in some form was accepted before the moon landings.
shanedk 2 years ago
google "water in moon rocks" first result destroys your claim that they have no water.
Second google "water discovered on moon" first result is the LCROSS mission (which I did some work on) which found lots of water.
The difference between the two findings is LCROSS crashed a huge metal disk into a deep POLAR crater which was in permanent shadow to eject that water. The astronauts dug a few feet near the equator. Those are two TOTALLY different regions of the moon.
dlandon2000 2 years ago
The satellite found the water how deep? 50 feet down? Can astronauts dig THAT deep? ;)
This is what happens when you cut and paste the first sentence of a 8 page article and ignore the rest, pretending to be an expert.
Missing the "50 feet down" part was pretty stupid of you. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Dumb anon cut and paste #2:
The water wasnt found "in rocks" anyway. It was found on its own under the surface.
Can hoax twats be trusted to understand ANYTHING scientific? You were too dumb to even understand "50 feet down" when you read it.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
And the water was found at the polar regions right? Which is not where the astronauts landed.
dlandon2000 2 years ago
I forget exactly where the area was, but you're right, it was nowhere near where the astronauts landed, and at the bottom of a HUGE crater, nowhere near the surface where they would have found it.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Oh, and it's also NOT true that they found "no traces of water." Some of the moon rocks had water molecules trapped in beads formed by volcanic forces.
shanedk 2 years ago
I think you guys missed the point. For a couple of smart guys you really just ...phew! The point was that for there to be water there must have been oxygen, and although I can't point to your specific comment you had stated there was no oxygen on the moon. Now if I took that the wrong way, and/ or didn't understand it I apologize. After all, Apollo rock isn't rock at all its petrified wood. Google petrified Apollo moon rock.
anon1104 2 years ago
THE MOON COMES FROM THE EARTH. Get that through your stupid, thick head!
And it's NOT in ANY way petrified wood. You're talking about ONE case where the chain of custody was broken; you can NOT honestly extrapolate that to all of the moon rocks, which have been INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED as genuine.
shanedk 2 years ago
Comment removed
anon1104 2 years ago
A) I'm not challenging the origin of the moon. How simpleminded are you that you thought that was what I was doing?
B) Are you saying that neither Armstrong, Collins nor Aldrin were capable of identifying what a moon rock looks like? I though you claimed they're the ones who went to the moon and got it?
anon1104 2 years ago
A) You INSISTED that there couldn't be molecules with oxygen on the moon because there's no oxygen gas. I pointed out that the moon comes from the Earth and should have the same make-up, including molecules containing oxygen. Now, you're hand-waving. What a LIAR.
B) This has NOTHING to do with Collins, Armstrong, or Aldrin. They are NOT experts in this area. STOP LYING.
shanedk 2 years ago
You lost me on the lying part?
I insisted that moon rocks came from the moon but werent necessarily collected on the landing you claim occurred in July 69. And suggested that they may have been manmade fakes. Your retort said they had no oxygen so they must come from the moon.
And the reason it has to do with the astronots is because they presented the wood chip as a moon rock. So YES they collected the stupid thing they SHOULD have known the difference. Surely you'd agree.
anon1104 2 years ago
There are a LOT of reasons they couldn't be fakes. And again, there is a difference between oxygen gas and elemental oxygen that is part of other molecules.
And you've been corrected about the wood thing MANY times. You persisting in these things long after being corrected makes you a LIAR.
shanedk 2 years ago
What do you mean many times? This is the first time I ever mentioned it. Maybe you heard it from someone else. I only found that story out the day I wrote it. And I'm not insinuating all moon rocks are fake. Rather I'm pointing out the fact that people who allegedly collected the rocks and then presented a piece of wood as a moon rock probably should have known better. And it lends credence to the theory that they didnt make that first trip as I have previously stated.
anon1104 2 years ago
The Apollo moon rocks did contain water but it was inconclusive because the samples may have been contaminated. The recent tests have conclusively proved the existence of moon water, not discovered it for the first time.
Aerosteon 2 years ago
Do I have to YET AGAIN explain to you the difference between molecular oxygen (O2) and other molecules that contain oxygen?
Or are you just lying again?
shanedk 2 years ago
I think you may have replied to the wrong comment. I understand and agree with you 100% that a lack of oxygen gas has nothing to do with the presence of other oxygen molecules such as water, and of course water has been found.
Aerosteon 2 years ago
Yes, that was supposed to be a reply to anon1104's post beginning, "Actually it had to do with the fact that Shane once said the moon rocks were devoid of oxygen..."
shanedk 2 years ago
And I also acknowledged this fact and apologized for not knowing the difference prior to Shane's explaining it properly to me so I'm not really sure why he's being so biting about it. Sorry you got caught in the crossfire Aerosteon
anon1104 2 years ago
Sorry to say but this Video has.. FAILED
timrocket2008 3 years ago
only idiot moon hoaz conspiritors fail hgere
TheProf1988 3 years ago
say that to the Russian space agency that recognized that USA did go to the Moon.
You fail
cyberweirdo2001 3 years ago
Americans are very stupid and are laughed at by Russia still to this day that Americans were fooled and still fooled. Just look how stupid this guy in the video is. Makes me laugh...
timrocket2008 3 years ago
uh, actually Russia confirmed the landings. they would have jumped all over a fake landing. there are fewer Russians who believe the hoax than Americans.
do you really think that 1960s/70s USSR wouldn't show the landings to be fake if they could? they couldn't, though.
yeah, the world verified the landings. there were people tracking the crafts from launch, some professional, some not.
the only ones that didn't get the memo were conspiracy theorists.
JackWisps 3 years ago
Wrong the First Conspiracy Theorists were the Russians. They were the first to KNOW it was fake. Get your facts straight.
timrocket2008 3 years ago
some citizens might have decided that, after all no nation is immune to conspiracy theorists, but the soviet government never claimed it was fake. russia just suddenly decided they weren't interested in the moon, if they ever really were, and kind of pushed it out of sight.
conspiracy theories about landing on the moon began from the moment they stepped on the moon, and likely before that. again, they never came out saying it was fake, and certainly didn't have any evidence of it.
JackWisps 3 years ago
Russia did Not decide they werent interested in the moon. They tried more times than America will ever know and concluded that it is not possible by any means. The firsts ones to know NASA faked it were Russian Scientists.
timrocket2008 3 years ago
"Wrong the First Conspiracy Theorists were the Russians."
Thats great Timmy! All you have to do is post EVEN ONE news article to prove it!
Considering your 0% success rate so far, I predict you'll fall flat on your face again, and quickly run away crying exactly as you did on all the other boards where you were asked to prove anything you said.
Proof is hard for you isnt it? Its far easier to make moronic claims when no one challenges your incompetent "facts."
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
What News article? For what? And what 0% success rate? I have already told you what the facts are. You disagree with them. You can not disagree with Facts as they are not your Opinion. You have to prove to us that they went to the Moon and you have failed each time. You would have been better off as a You Tube character claiming the opposite.
timrocket2008 3 years ago
After weeks of silence, congratulations for having nothing better to do on Christmas Eve than recycle your moronic ignorance. I assure you, I HAD better things to do. ;)
"What News article?"
The one YOU HAVE TO HAVE TO PROVE THE RUSSIANS SAY WE FAKED IT. You said the russians know its fake. WELL HOW DO YOU KNOW? Do you have a witness, an article? Of course not. You just throw out dumb posts pretending you're not faking it.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
Actually Russians wouldn't have said Jack-Sh*t because they had a few dead cosmonauts floating around the moon in their own failed capsule. Reminder: Aldrin & co. reported seeing a UFO pacing them at the moon. Either it was aliens or dead Russians that made it there first but something went wrong. It wouldve been a National embarrassment for Russia.
anon1104 2 years ago
Oh, what a relief; for a minute there I thought you were going to say something completely batshit insane...
shanedk 2 years ago
Well thank god the dead russians have been kept such a total secret. Can you imagine how bad security must be for every hoaxaholic dufus to make posts about it on public boards?
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
@anon1104
You mean the UFO that looked like the S-IVB (S-4b) booster (aka. the 3rd stage of the Saturn V rocket)?
So now we're up to three possibilities.
1) Aliens (Highly unlikely)
2) Soviet Soyuz moon craft (Highly unlikely)
3) The S-4b booster (Very likely since it would have been following them after the jettison after the TLI burn).
jxvwp 1 year ago
You would have to be a Moron like the guy in this video to believe Man walked on the Moon.
timrocket2008 3 years ago
Heres a little info a lot of people don't know. When Apollo 13 exploded, the debris cloud could be seen from ground based astronomers. Also, the TLI burn could bee seen with the naked eye from people in Australia. Did they fake all of that ?
dcb1138 3 years ago
Was it was 500 miles above the Earth?
timrocket2008 3 years ago
BTW, how the heck can any one of you listen to the guy whine like a girl with his screechy little voice? Sheezz even if he were telling the truth whatsoever here his voice grats on your ears like a kid scratching a chalkboard with nail file!! The only person I can compair him to for shear annoyance is that pitchman you see on TV all the time pitching OXI-Clean! Find another so called D-bunker please...
stalkervision 3 years ago
This guy is obviously smoking dope or on major meds or both. Ya, rocket engines don't leave craters or marks and don't raise dist clouds and are akin to one walking at one ps1..! Maybe if he whines a little more some little girl will listen to him ya think. LMAO!
stalkervision 3 years ago
How does a rocket make a blast crater at <1.3 psi? How do you have a dust cloud with no air?
shanedk 3 years ago
"Do you leave a blast crater with every step!?" Hilarious.
dangerics 3 years ago
Nice one , dangerics sir.
Mister shanedk seems to have a conveniently limited understanding of the effect of sustained rocket thrust psi over and above that of a simple fraction-second one-off boot tread.
They're poles apart. He claims impartiality in his loud commentary , but has he ever questioned NASA on anything ?
Still looking, sir.
ApolloColumbo 3 years ago
", but has he ever questioned NASA on anything ?"
I'd prefer a reasonable reason as to WHY they should be questioned, other than "THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO STEAL OUR CHILDREN AND RAPE OUR MOTHERS!!!" juvenile fear-mongering.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 years ago
It's going to send more of your sons abroad to get butchered and maimed for life in phony wars based on lies, just so as their cronies in defence, oil & construction can get rich on the back of it ... that's all.
And if it's capable of THAT, then I'm SURE it's just got to be squeaky clean on all the other info' it puts out too, heh.
Bleat on, STM/Shane - your dangerously naive, blinkered & brainwashed ilk are part of the problem, not the solution.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
"It's going to send more of your sons abroad to get butchered and maimed for life in phony wars based on lies, just so as their cronies in defence, oil & construction can get rich on the back of it ... that's all."
How does the *MOON LANDING* have anything to do with the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.?!?!?!! Question the WARS, not the *MOON LANDING* where the SCIENCE comes down hard on its being REAL!!!!
mike4ty4 3 years ago
do you know if any pictures of our stuff on the moon have been taken by hubble? I've always wondered about this. After all it's our stuff! We should be keeping a very close eye on it just in case some of our friends from other worlds might think of taking it.
smartbandwidth 3 years ago
Hubble doesn't have anywhere near the resolution for this. With a resolution of 0.05 arcseconds, at the moon's distance (call it 400,000km) that means it can only resolve objects if they're at least 96 meters wide. I've heard some hoaxers claim a .015 arcsecond resolution for Hubble (with no source cited, natch), but even that couldn't resolve anything less than 29 meters wide.
shanedk 3 years ago
Your 1.5 psi figure for the engine nozzle is perhaps calculated on the basis of equal thrust from the burn chamber spreading evenly on exiting over its circular outlet?
If you actually see a picture of the LM or CSM engine being bench-tested in a vacuum you'll notice a narrow central column of what looks like very intense thrust within the overall wide thrust cone.
It's therefore possible the 2-3,000lbs LM thrust was concentrated in a c. one sq ft vertical column = 144sq inches = 15-20psi.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
1.5psi is a MAXIMUM value, based on the weight of the craft and the area on the nozzle. Over on ClaviusDOTorg, a rocket scientist has actually done the calculation, including thrust variances and accelerants, and got a figure of .9psi.
You're WRONG. Deal with it.
shanedk 3 years ago
A one-off half second tire/whatever print of 9psi is entirely different from many seconds of scouring thrust @ the same pressure.
You compare chalk and cheese here sir, if you don't mind my saying so. It's called being economical with the truth.
ApolloColumbo 3 years ago
The ONLY difference is that the thrust would blow away any dust underneath it, and the LM did EXACTLY THAT.
shanedk 3 years ago
According to the photos yes , sir. But your unquestioning, proselytizing and slavish promotion of all NASA archive material as 100 % genuine , honest and gospel makes open and intelligent debate with you impossible. You never question a military agency's honesty .. ever.
That alone invalidates completely your claimed impartiality , sir. You are at least as brainwashed as you claim those who oppose you are.
ApolloColumbo 3 years ago
"You never question a military agency's honesty .. ever."
You do realize you're talking to one of the guys behind the TruthAboutWarDOTorg website, right?
shanedk 3 years ago
Oh, and by the way, car tires are regularly inflated to 35psi or higher, far greater than your 15-20psi. How many cars end up with four blast craters underneath them?
shanedk 3 years ago
thrust cone in vacuum is actually round, because there isn't any air pressure to prevent it from rapidly spreading. in fact, in the nasa skylab (i think), they lit a candle, and the flame was a round bubble instead of a tall column of flame.
in addition, if you ever see a saturn v launch, as the rocket rises skyward after a minute or two, the exhaust from the F-1 engines start to expand outwards from its central column.
icyplanetnhc 3 years ago
Yeah, it's trying to form a sphere; resistance from the rocket nozzle (which is always there) and from the air (which isn't) prevents it.
Picture of a flame in zero-gravity: scienceDOTnasaDOTgov/headlines/images/spiral/flamesDOTgif
Amazing how it looks sans convection, isn't it?
shanedk 3 years ago
Something else that's really cool: water boiling in microgravity:
scienceDOTnasaDOTgov/headlines/images/boiling/comparison2DOTjpg
shanedk 3 years ago
icyplanetnhc; you need to take a close look at the photo ( on clavius last time I checked) of CM/LM rocket motor undergoing bench-test in a vacuum chamber.
The high velocity thrust plume is clearly conical with a narrow central column which likely accounts for a high percentage of the overall thrust figure of the engine.
I think you may have been overly influenced by various artists' impressions of sundry landing craft.
michaelstmark 3 years ago
shanedk, It is the same way that you get the luner rover to kick up big rooster tails dust trails while driving on the moon buddy..
stalkervision 3 years ago
Ace
baskoffie 3 years ago
Knowledge desolves ignorance.
5/5 and favorite everyon!
soulinite 3 years ago
Excellent debunking.
This is one bit of pseudoscience that confuses me more than many others. I can understand that a fantasy-prone person might wish to believe in things like alien visitation or psychic powers, but where's the allure of believing that one of the greatest adventures in human history was a hoax? What's the attraction? They seem to want to believe in fantastic things, so why do they dismiss this fantastic story? Just because it's true? Strange people.
theinquisitor 3 years ago 4
Hey Spread did you come up with an answer for the Moon Rocks question I left here for you yet? It's been a while, just wondering. Thanks.
anon1104 3 years ago
LOL at 6:53 RE: Pravda
english. pravda. ru/ science/
19/94/377/9994_moon(dot)html
change the (dot) to a "." close gaps before "pravda" "ru" & "science" copy and paste.
40 years late, but here it is on Pravda.
anon1104 3 years ago
okay, my vids up. Let's try to use the orientation I've used when referring to which window is which so that we may all be on the same page. Other than that, it should speak for itself, but I welcome any comments you may have, except with regards to the quality. It's obviously not at the level Shane is capable of producing, but it gets the point across.
anon1104 3 years ago
You've not demonstrated why this must be the starboard window (#5) looking aft.
The antenna seen in my video is the one on the LEM, as seen through window 5 (starboard side) unless I am very much mistaken.
What convinces you that this is #5 looking aft ? Because that's the only way you could look out of the CSM and NOT see anything, perhaps ???
Why must this necessarily be #5,
RoadRunnerLaser 3 years ago
... looking aft with the camera oriented the way you suggest ?
Your video is less conclusive than my own. At least mine showed that the LEM is most certainly visible and it would appear toward the lower portion of the windows because it's docked onto the nose and the heads of the astronauts are higher than the centre-line when in their couches.
RoadRunnerLaser 3 years ago
And you also showed conclusively that, against a pure black background, reflections do indeed appear solid.
shanedk 3 years ago
Indeed, I did.
Not forgetting that it showed that there ARE reflections on the windows even though they are AR coated but the video also showed the chromatic effect from the AR coating making the reflection appear very blue.
RoadRunnerLaser 3 years ago
I yield the point about reflections. They are possible, but minimal. According to NASA:
Despite the fact that the windows contain anti-reflective coatings, lighting conditions are such that reflections of the spacecraft interior are often photographed. In a frame from 16mm data acquisition camera film showing reflections of an astronaut's spacesuit. The first reflection shows the spacesuit as bright white; the second, a less bright reflection from an interior window surface is recorded as blue.
anon1104 3 years ago
It's impotant to note that THEY (not I) point out that there would be a duplicate image just like my expert photographer suggested. And also note it says a 2nd reflection on the interior window appears as blue. The image we see has no duplicate and is anything but blue. Indicating further that this is an exterior object.
anon1104 3 years ago
Keep in mind though that the couches are stowable, so unless evident on film that they are out, its possible they were away. Also the angle the couches is at is more like a / and less like a | so the feet dont necessarily point towards the nosecone, but rather more towards the sextant on the bottomside of the craft using my orientation as a base.
anon1104 3 years ago
A) In the extended video you can see the camera move from left to right.
B) As it moves from the 'rectangular' window left to right, slighty above it, it acquires the next window, which is a forward looking window.
C) Since its occuring from left to right and above, it stands confirmed that we are talking about the starboard window.
D) For it to be the Port window, with the camera moving left to right, to acquire the forward looking window the camera would have to angle down.
anon1104 3 years ago
You can get the entire clip online at the Apollo Lunar Journal. I also think it's on YouTube on sVector's channel.
shanedk 3 years ago
I've been through the majority of your posts until I made this statement:
"you have clearly demonstrated that you are scientifically illiterate, gullible, irrational, unwilling to understand, hyperfixated on nonsense and abusive in the face of the truth. These are the hallmarks of a classic kook."
I think I maybe confused someone else's posts with some of your own. I have not found you to be abusive. Mildly insulting and showing your exasperation from time to time but not really abusive.
RoadRunnerLaser 3 years ago
So, I am due you an apology.
I retract my claim that you were abusive and I wholeheartedly apologise as I may have arrived at that impression in error.
RoadRunnerLaser 3 years ago
If your intent wasnt to backpedal and I've misinterpreted that then I too apologize.
anon1104 3 years ago
Apology accepted on the basis that both of your premises (or conditional clauses) were true.
So, right now I'm not 100% sure of which window is being viewed from (although I have a fair idea). I'm not 100% sure of the orientation of the astronaut filming and which way he is holding the camera.
I accept your earlier description of approximately how the camera is being handled and moved around to keep Earth in shot (for the argument)...
RoadRunnerLaser 3 years ago
I'd like to draw your attention to the terminator. It appears at the bottom, the top and the sides during the full sequence of clips. If we try to use the last known position of the terminator as a reference (before the final zoom out and we see our "object") we might be able to extrapolate from there. Remember, in space, there is no UP or DOWN. That's why I am referring my directions to the nose of the craft. They float about like sealions in a tank.
RoadRunnerLaser 3 years ago
At the time they performed the TLI burn, they must have been facing prograde (nose forward) and they'd have been approximately on the opposite side of Earth to the moon when performing this burn.
They'd be approximately retrograde immediately after the CSM/LEM docking and if memory serves correctly, this would be soon after TLI burn. There may be no need for them to turn prograde again until the first mid-course correction, however studying the flight plan may give us a better idea.
RoadRunnerLaser 3 years ago
What I can tell you for sure is that the LEM is most certainly visible from at least two of the five (if I recall) windows in the CSM.
I'm reasonably sure that it is visible from all of the windows... Just. If the camera is in the right place. My memory may not be serving correctly, it's been a long time since I flew the Apollo simulator but I know darned well that it is most certainly visible through the two either side of the hatch as the crosshairs in the window are used for LEM docking.
RoadRunnerLaser 3 years ago
I can help with that. The window is oriented the same way as if you were standing in a room looking out a window. The nosecone is overhead. Above and slightly to the right is another window, much smaller and angled. Here's a link to an image which may help:
farm4.static.flickr.c om
/3011/2596637061_55c72a0dfc
.jpg?v=0
The window to the right should be where the filming was done. Note the hatch 2 windows to the left is a round porthole window. And the window in the middle is too small.
anon1104 3 years ago
"The window is oriented the same way as if you were standing in a room looking out a window."
That offers nothing to the discussion, sadly.
However, if we use the picture you provided as a reference, you must remember that in that picture, the CSM is effectively sitting on its tail. An astronaut "sitting" in one of the "seats" would be lying on his back with his feet in the air and the cameraman would be looking at the top of the astronaut's head. (Launch position).
RoadRunnerLaser 3 years ago
Those windows aren't like windows in a tower and an astronaut would stand and look out of them, they are more like the windshield and side windows of a car (although not quite because it's cone-shaped) which means looking out of the "side" windows will also mean looking somewhat forward (toward the nose).
Two of those windows are purely forward facing, but they are slightly odd shaped and I don't think the window in the clip is one of these.
RoadRunnerLaser 3 years ago
I didn't realise, but I've just discovered that it is also possible to see one of the directional antennae from at least one of those "side windows". It's looking less and less likely that seeing something outside the window of Apollo 11 is suggestive of deception.
RoadRunnerLaser 3 years ago
I still don't think it can be outside the window, since a) why didn't it partially cover the Earth earlier in the shot, and b) why is it fully lit when it wasn't on the sunny side and could only be lit by the light escaping the windows in the cabin?
And why did it get brighter EXACTLY when Collins removes the sun shield from the other window later in the shot?
shanedk 3 years ago
You may need to seek a longer clip to ascertain the info. Ask Shane if he can provide you with it. I'd bet that he has the full clip on his hard drive. Perhaps he can upl