There's one reason why this 'speed' version of your video doesn't work... the speed in which the camera moves.. pans & tilt, doesn't look natural it's too fast... if we were looking at the correct speed (as you imply) then how on earth can a camera-operator react so fast? no.. try again.
@centurion180ad Yes and when you look at a lamp on the street during the night you see no stars or planets or the Milky way around it.That's proof that we're not really here at all.
@hceely Yes it did. If you click top left of the number 100K it will take you to an article saying 99,727 or 100,000 Kelvin. Also independently searching multiple sources for the answer will provide it.
@smadzenites You know what NASA and US should do, to shut the mouths of all detractors...?! Simply order some astronauts to make 3 meter/yard jumps high on the lunar surface itself -- that would be the most definitive proof, because gravity on the moon is about 6 times lower, so one should be able to make fantastic jumps by only the power of his muscles.
@centurion180ad I suggest you get out of your mom's basement. Look, mate, how do you explain the rovers, the tracks and the spent descent stages on the Moon? Who put them there? We can see them from the orbiters now. And where did the Moon rocks given to scientists all around the world come from?
@HayZing Quadruplex video recording equipment replaced the kinescope in the broadcast industry early as 1956, and was not an "emerging" technology when astronaut moon landings happened. This equipment was already using SMPTE binary timecoding to operate by '67, governing recording frame rate. There was no "film" even involved to change "film speed", and you couldn't just randomly vary video tape playback speed on this equipment.
Hoaxers are tards. How do hoaxers explain all the man-made objects left on the moon by astonauts that are now detected from earth with current technologies? Even amateur astronomers routinely bounce lasers off this stuff.
I only one question and that is why in all the images supposed to have been taken on the luna surface, that none show any stars in the sky. If you look closely at any of the photos, the light concentrates only around the actors. Funny about that. I can say that they have landed probes on the surface of the moon, but doubt they put a human there. Pitty this great moment in history was just a fake.
@HayZing Ok. If things on the moon weigh 1/6 that as on Earth, then do the math and tell me how much faster a video would have to be sped up to make it look like its on Earth.
PEOPLE BORN AFTER 1970: It wasn't just on TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There were millions who saw the launches from Florida--the single greatest step of the mission, the thousands of navy personnel who saw the capsules appear in the sky and the parachutes billowing, the astronauts climbing out, the scientists who independently examined the moon rocks, the observatories that tracked the spacecraft across the skies, etc. etc. etc. etc. are you calling them all liars? Then you go to hell!
great video, proves when shown at regular speed the whole thing was staged here on earth ... watch MOONFAKER SERIES or this ...watch?v=59q5dUjGzM0&feature=email ... couple of many things proving hoax
all authentic "moon movies" were slowed down to half speed, giving the impression of moon gravity. but nowhere does it come close to actual 1/6th moon gravity. the moon landing were a masonic hoax greater than 911. and people until today believe it. even my own parents and siblings are convinced they went, becuase they heard it over and over again in school, newspapers etc. this is the power of the masons. if you have not the real christ, u are easy prey for satans indoctrination.
@Treblaine Suddenly there's gravity meaning "Normal" or "earth scale" gravity. Listen you fuckwit I'm not interested in getting into a debate over my comment - all I meant was that if you look at the curve of the object falling back to the ground it makes it look like full earth bound gravity. Get it? Got it now? Get over yourself - who the hell made you fucking Youtube police?. I KNOW THERE'S GODDAMN GRAVITY ON THE MOON.
See how they are putting a lot of body weight (clip 4) into the throw ..well how is it that they could control their own body forward movement in the moons weak gravity surely they would fall over forward as they let the object go? it seems their body reaction to each throw is the exact way it would be here on earth?...fair comment or no?
Interesting that one, it appears to be a polythene wrapping he took off one of the equipment packs. I would like to know how the hoaxies explain that while telling us at the same time the wind was blowing a flag.
Its not a matter of whether one was trying to throw further than usual or not- ITS JUST THAT IN 1/6 GRAVITY, EVERYTHING SHOULD GO 6 TIMES FURTHER THAN NORMAL, WITHOUT REALLY TRYING. IS THIS TRYING ENOUGH, THINKTANKS? PMSL
@HansOloPL well if there was zero gravity it would go forever with virtually no effort. yet these dont go anywhere near 6 times further. Indeed when you watch the video with everything doubled it up, it looks remarkably like earth type properties.
you notice how in clip 2 the bag once traveling through the air(space) keeps a rounded shape and once it its the floor, crumbles up? that appears to be caused by the lack of atmosphere. nothing to drag on the bag.
@Treblaine Jesus and you call me a moron?? Go do some research, the moon is 1/6 of the gravity on Earth - the way those object are falling looks like normal gravity is all I was saying. Fucktard.
@paulmkrotine Did you read my other comments? For fuck sake, I regret not being more clear. Somebody please thumb this up before I kill myself. I KNOW THE MOON HAS GRAVITY - to be specific 1/6th of the Earths. WHAT I MEANT WAS THAT THE CURVATURE OF THE OBJECTS THROWN MADE IT LOOK LIKE EARTH BOUND GRAVITY. Christ on a stick I'm done with this. Somebody put me out of my fucking misery.
From now On I'm going to be sarcastic and say "Oh really? The moon has fucking gravity? OH MY GOD. OMG OMG OMG! I have to go tell all my fucking friends. HEY BUDDY! THE MOON HAS GRAVITY! No really! SERIOUS! When they throw shit it falls back down. Yeah. It's just weird how when it's sped up IT FUCKING LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE ON PLANET FUCKING EARTH.
@sphinxart It's only the internet...you will never meet any of these hoaxers in real life, unless you go to a restaurant (busboy) car wash, have a ditch dug for you, or have a pizza delivered to your house.
@sphinxart how about you go find them all, gather them together with footnotes and bibliography, and present it to me in a fashion where i give a shit
@whitedevil2 How about you come over here and get them, I've filed them under "Retard" especially for you. If you don't give a shit, don't comment on things I said out of context.
What I think is funny is how you guys are so deluded that you think that the objects are behaving just like they would on earth.
The problem is they all stop abruptly when they hit the ground because they are going slower. This happens because static friction comes into play sooner when you are going slower.
So, basically all you did was prove yourself wrong.
Another very funny example is pendulum physics acting differently than you'd expect on earth in sped up footage.
Is this supposed to prove it was fake? Because it's not working that well. Objects hang in the air and fly too high for what little power they put into their throws. The second clip, he just flicks ibis wrist and it goes flying.
The videos were not slowed down. Mythbusters did an episode where they went on the Zero-G plane and duplicated the moon's gravity and recreated the walking and jumping and it looked exactly the same.
@denonphyte man a lot of Americans don't believe in the moon landing its just gullible people and when you question it they always have one sided debates like a astronomer and some guy who barely knows anything. Ive seen plenty of debates where scientist are just completely stumped don't know how to explain some of these unnatural things.
@lilsm555, I think you need to look closer. I think you'll find clear scientific explanations for almost any bizarre, obscure notion that hoax proponents have. Sometimes scientists can't even understand the nearly illiterate ideas people have about science. It takes a few minutes to even fathom the silly ideas. I'd be happy to tackle any objection you may have.
@l1qu1dm3t4lIV no atmoshere no friction.. therefore the dust fall freely down at level at 1/6 earth gravity. you can also notice the rings they make around they boots when they touch the "ground". .. this can be evidentiated only there on the moon. surely not in a earth studio.
@Slyvesta0k exactly... but beside that.. have you consider that if they slowed down the recording in order to appare a 1/6 erarth gravity... well..the ring waves that the boots are making on the ground.. unfortunately they slow down as well! and if I'm not wrong .. the speed of the waves on the moon (with less gravity and no atmosphere) should be much faster than earth. there you hae it :) you can't fake gravity and not the wave rings!! am I right?
gravity works the same way anywhere in our solar system, granted some plants/moons have a stronger gravitational pull than others. gravity on the moon is just weaker than the earth. it doesn't matter that these guys sped it up to look like the gravity of the earth, we've been to the moon.
@bertlapollo he is talking about gravity. on the moons 1/6th of earths gravity objects would have more hangtime due to there being less gravitational pull. So objects would stay in the air much longer and probably travel much faster too, due too there being no atmosphere.
High-area objects are spinning in a most non-aerodynamic manner. Also, it seems, sped up, like the astronauts are throwing VERY hard, and the objects aren't leaving their hands very fast, and not slowing down at all as they fly. Obviously no atmosphere.
TheJomongogo: "You do realize that it's just a bunch of beeps and shit noise that would mean nothing to you right?"
Thats like saying an Important Document in a FAX being sent to me means nothing to me because I answered it with a Telephone instead of a FAX Machine.
Don't you realize yet that you DID NOT DEBUNK this? Or are so delusional that you still think you debunked every piece of evidence that proves man was not walking around on another planet?
The moon landing was real in my opinion because we definitely have the technology and it is theoretically possible and not totally unrealistic. The military has technology way ahead of what we know, yet landing on the moon is possible even by classic textbook standards.
One then might ask why there was so much suspicion regarding the moon landing. I'll tell you why. They have every right to be suspicious because some very strange things were going on there that NASA was trying to hide.
Firstly they were trying to cover up the fact that the moon has earth gravity. Secondly they were trying to cover up that the moon has a breathable atmosphere and thirdly they were trying to cover up the fact that NASA used anti-gravity propulsion when taking off from the moon. That's why there was no dust cloud.
Now you might laugh but that's just because your indoctrinated. Do the research. I know I have.
I think you meant occultations when you said occulations (correct me if i am wrong). When the sun is occulted by the moon a thin atmospheric fringe is indeed visible. This is not the sun's corona because the thin fringe is visible during a partial eclipse of the sun! And whether of not dust was kicked up is irrelevant unless we can access the original tapes.
Tidal theory is in a sad mess... w w w . w b a b i n . n e t/mathis/mathis21.htm... so it would be risky to make any quantitative claims based on it. Too many factors to take into consideration. Who exactly is "we" anyway. The general public follows and believes mass media, end of story. It's been shown so many times. Think about the indoctrination in Hitler's time.
w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m/watch?v=K42UqWGdA_o at 00:00 when analyzed fully the bottom right section of fringe around the moon should be dimmer according to the radial propagation of the corona, which it is not. The full corona does not even stretch as far. Through calculation the thinnest part of the fringe seems to be 24 km which is realistic.
So the dimwit timrocket actualy thinks the ISS astronauts are not weightless. I'm sure if you put a scale under them they would in fact be weightless.
But it still doesn't look quite like earth. The objects fly too high and too far for the small movements of the astronaut arms that throw them. That's because, while you can scale velocity and acceleration by changing time, you can't scale ENERGY. For the same reason, speeding up the astronauts walking doesn't look right either.
@thirdclass2006 First off, like I said if you speed up the film exactly AS MUCH AS NASA slowed it down, YOU CAN SEE IT WAS FILMED ON EARTH. The arm movements look perfectly natural and thats a Fact.
Second, That is NOT dust, it is called Sand.
Altering film is what NASA did. It is only re-altered to it's original speed.
@vava54own actually their weight is not zero it is a significant portion of their weight on the surface. the reason you experience weightlessness is because in orbit you are in freefall. its the same thing as if you go on one of those amusement park rides that drops you straight down and you release a penny or something to see it "float" in front of you.
Yes, I do understand what how weightlessness works.
Now, about not having a null weight in orbit... let me explain how it work.
Your weight here on a balance: 150 lbs
On the moon, with the same balance: ~25 lbs
On the ISS, again, with the same balance: 0lbs
You can't weight something in orbit, unless there is an acceleration. If the acceleration is equal to 9.8 m/s, then you will weight the same thing that you would on earth. Your mass is constant, though, even in space.
@vava54own ugh... ok i wasn't looking for this but here goes. just because you can't weigh things with our usual machines for it doesn't mean it doesn't have weight which is the force exerted by gravity. there is most definitely an acceleration in orbit its how you stay in orbit and don't just shoot off into space, theres a centripetal acceleration towards the center of the earth (from gravity) just because you don't feel the effects of weight doesn't mean it isnt there.
@bertlapollo the video didnt need speeding up this much. compare the speed of the original to the speed of the pendulum video on youtube, its already considerably faster than the 'original' speed version.
@bertlapollo The furthest man has ever gone or any mass for that matter is 400 miles into space. You weigh the same in Space. Even if you went 4000 miles away you would still weigh at least half what you do On the Surface of Earth. No man has or any mass in Earth Magnetic field has ever gone any further than 400-450 miles above Earth despite What NASA trys to claim. They claim this because people like you will believe them and in turn, it justifies their existence and the consumption of your $
@TheJomogogo NASA are the" Moon Hoaxers" You seem to have taken the same English class as everyone else who pathetically tries to debunk the massive amounts of damning evidence that proves it was all a Hoax time and time again. It is truly pathetic for an Adult to actual believe in something like this.
Timerocket every hoax theory ever put forth has been easily debunked and proven wrong with a few facts, but no matter how many times a hoax advocate gets his ass handed to him in an argument he just wanders off and repeats the same tired shit somewhere else.
@TheJomogogo Name one. I see them called debunked many times but never actually debunked except for the "no stars" and stupid ones. I have been researching for 16 years for proof that they went to the Moon and nothing they have is actual proof.
You people say they tracked them all the way to the Moon. How come no one in the entire world came forth with any type of telemetry data recordings? If NASA really had any, they would release it to Public Domain.They don't have them/ Nonexistent
@TheJomogogo I did that already knuckle head. I mean that should be obvious to you if you read my post. They only say there is but where the F is it? If it were true they would release it to Public Domain.. You can find alot of talk about Apollo Telemetry Data recordings. Big deal! Lets see them! We can't because they probably do not exists. I would bet my life on it that they don't. But you call this debunked because you are an ignorant blind fool. I knew you couldn't even debunk the 1st one.
@TheJomogogo First of all you are absolutely wrong and totally ignorant to what it even is so it means nothing to YOU. So how can someone who knows nothing about what I am even talking about shoot it down? " Its just a bunch of beeps" That made me laugh BTW.
@timrocket2008 -- Telemetry data is always turned into information ("data" is NOT the same as "information") and then the original data is usually thrown away because it is useless in its original form. There would be no reason whatsoever for anyone to keep the original telemetry data from Apollo. I suppose they may have kept some of it for historical purposes, but nobody would have much of a use for it, so there would be no purpose in going to the expense of publishing it.
@nesokretep Ha Ha thats a laugh. "None would have much use for it" If anyone had real TD of anything being tracked to the Moon, they would be RICHER than Bill Gates!!! NASA spends $15,000 on a book to debunk the evidence but could not debunk the nonexistence of the TD so they never published it...and you think you did. Pretty pathetic.
Like I said, you can not debunk this no one can. Until there is telemetry data to prove they were tracked to the Moon then nobody tracked anything to the Moon.
@timrocket2008 -- No. The original telemetry data is worthless. It is analyzed and turned into information and then it is thrown away.
.
It certainly would not make someone "richer than Bill Gates."
.
And if they DID keep some of it and make it public, you would just claim that it was faked. Everybody knows that you would just claim it is fake. So you are not really doing anything to advance your argument by demanding to see it. (Besides, you wouldn't know what to do with it anyway)
WHY can you not fake telemetry data? I am particularly interested in this because the basis of a large part of the argument of many hoax-theory promoters is that the thousands of engineers who were monitoring the telemetry were monitoring "faked" data. You will need to refute a whole bunch of your fellow hoax-theory cult members with your answer.
@nesokretep You are just making things up now. Thousands of engineers reading fake telemetry data? Not true. There were about 15 people watching monitors and then broadcasting video. You are not fully aware of the evidence that leads people to believe it was all a hoax. Which is why you argue it. Thats is called ignorance.
Why can't you fake the TD recordings? Because something would have to physically be out as far as the wave lengths read on the TD recordings.
@timrocket2008 -- No. There were thousands of people at a dozen different companies analyzing telemetry data to make sure the systems that they had designed were functioning properly. Just because you see the couple dozen people in the control room doesn't mean that other people don't exist.
@nesokretep "thousands of people at a dozen different companies analyzing telemetry data" It only takes one person to analyze. but you "think " THOUSANDS!!!
@timrocket2008 -- I know it makes you laugh. But that is only because you don't know anything about how aerospace operates. I work in aerospace.
.
Each system in ANY test vehicle (not just Apollo, but any new jet or anything) has a team of engineers who designed it and are responsible for its operation. Every fuel tank, rocket motor, door, life-support oxygen tank, water supply unit, etc. EVERYTHING. Each has a data stream which is beamed back and analyzed by the WHOLE egineering team.
@timrocket2008 -- ANY flight test of ANY experimental commercial or military aircraft or space craft operates basically the same way. It has the same kinds of teams of hundreds (or, since the vehicle was so complex and its operation was so critical) in the case of Apollo, thousands of engineers analyzing data from the telemetry.
.
And the teams of engineers on the Apollo project were from multiple private companies all over the country. They designed it. They tracked its performance.
@nesokretep Thats stupid. If any of that were true then someone would have recordings on magnetic film. ALL of it must be on magnetic film. This film should exists but doesn't.
This is my main problem. If I can get my hands on some actual Telemetry recordings, then I will finally have proof that it was not a Hoax. And hypothetically speaking, I would dismiss all of the other evidence and inconsistencies as" well there must be some logical "explanation". But I just don't see that happening.
@timrocket2008 -- I'm curious -- what kind of data would you expect to find on the telemetry tapes? What format would it be in? How would you read it? And how would you interpret it? (those last two questions are vastly different questions, by the way.)
Also, about deleting the raw telemetry data, we're talking 1970. It wasn't the same as 2010, where terabytes are cheap. Data tapes cost money, and lots of tapes cost lots of money. All the subcontractors were for-profit businesses. They didn't delete the original data once it was analyzed to hide anything, they reused the tapes simply to save money. I suspect it never even occurred to them someone might deny the landings.
@boulderdsvo -- I've worked with 1970's & 1980's data library resources. Not engineering data but finance data at an aerospace company. I've even been responsible for forgetting to keep a key master file index of lots of the info from the old system. hahaha ... It's a good thing we haven't needed it for the IRS or something.
.
It's really easy to have an "oops" even with data that you consider important. That and anything from 1969 would likely be largely unreadable by now anyway.
Working hard to spread our litter everywhere in the cosmos. Disappointing. I could have done without seeing this. Then again, im glad a did.
xXDEICIDE216Xx 1 day ago
There's one reason why this 'speed' version of your video doesn't work... the speed in which the camera moves.. pans & tilt, doesn't look natural it's too fast... if we were looking at the correct speed (as you imply) then how on earth can a camera-operator react so fast? no.. try again.
pcvideogamer 2 weeks ago
There are NEVER any stars visible, or planets, or the Milky Way.
We did NOT go to the moon, on any TV video I have ever seen.
centurion180ad 1 month ago
@centurion180ad Yes and when you look at a lamp on the street during the night you see no stars or planets or the Milky way around it.That's proof that we're not really here at all.
denispkpk 1 month ago
@denispkpk NO NASA video or stills from Apollo ever has any stars in it.
There is LEM/CM docking/undocking video ON THE DARK SIDE, where the sky ought to be *lit up* with stars, planets & milky way.
Astronauts are LIARS when they say they never saw and they do not remember seeing any stars.
centurion180ad 1 month ago
The temperature of interplanetary medium is about 99,727°C.
Psy0psAgent 1 month ago
@Psy0psAgent I read that the temperature is 100K...
hceely 1 month ago
@hceely It probably meant 100,000 Kelvin right?
hceely 1 month ago
@hceely Yes it did. If you click top left of the number 100K it will take you to an article saying 99,727 or 100,000 Kelvin. Also independently searching multiple sources for the answer will provide it.
Psy0psAgent 1 month ago
clip no 6 is clip no 5??????!!!!!!!!!!
nikerman25 2 months ago
the thrown objects look natural but the people move hyper fast... no amount of video editing will make it look like it was shot on earth
smadzenites 2 months ago 9
@smadzenites You know what NASA and US should do, to shut the mouths of all detractors...?! Simply order some astronauts to make 3 meter/yard jumps high on the lunar surface itself -- that would be the most definitive proof, because gravity on the moon is about 6 times lower, so one should be able to make fantastic jumps by only the power of his muscles.
bat7j 2 months ago
@bat7j how much wieght do you think they're carrying in those backpacks?
smadzenites 2 months ago
@smadzenites Idiot.
I looks EXACTLY like it would, on earth.
centurion180ad 2 hours ago
@centurion180ad I suggest you get out of your mom's basement. Look, mate, how do you explain the rovers, the tracks and the spent descent stages on the Moon? Who put them there? We can see them from the orbiters now. And where did the Moon rocks given to scientists all around the world come from?
smadzenites 2 hours ago
@centurion180ad But, honestly, I doubt you were serious. This NASA hoax community is made of weird old dudes and the occasional internet troll.
smadzenites 2 hours ago
@HayZing Quadruplex video recording equipment replaced the kinescope in the broadcast industry early as 1956, and was not an "emerging" technology when astronaut moon landings happened. This equipment was already using SMPTE binary timecoding to operate by '67, governing recording frame rate. There was no "film" even involved to change "film speed", and you couldn't just randomly vary video tape playback speed on this equipment.
shoogdon 3 months ago
Hoaxers are tards. How do hoaxers explain all the man-made objects left on the moon by astonauts that are now detected from earth with current technologies? Even amateur astronomers routinely bounce lasers off this stuff.
shoogdon 3 months ago
I only one question and that is why in all the images supposed to have been taken on the luna surface, that none show any stars in the sky. If you look closely at any of the photos, the light concentrates only around the actors. Funny about that. I can say that they have landed probes on the surface of the moon, but doubt they put a human there. Pitty this great moment in history was just a fake.
Trickie2007 3 months ago
@HayZing Ok. If things on the moon weigh 1/6 that as on Earth, then do the math and tell me how much faster a video would have to be sped up to make it look like its on Earth.
KMPaz4op 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PEOPLE BORN AFTER 1970: It wasn't just on TV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There were millions who saw the launches from Florida--the single greatest step of the mission, the thousands of navy personnel who saw the capsules appear in the sky and the parachutes billowing, the astronauts climbing out, the scientists who independently examined the moon rocks, the observatories that tracked the spacecraft across the skies, etc. etc. etc. etc. are you calling them all liars? Then you go to hell!
charliegoodboy 4 months ago
great video, proves when shown at regular speed the whole thing was staged here on earth ... watch MOONFAKER SERIES or this ...watch?v=59q5dUjGzM0&feature=email ... couple of many things proving hoax
pt1gard 4 months ago
Sure if it's sped up it looks like earth?.... So what?
somewhatd 4 months ago
great video sticks the middle finger up to those who are brainwashed dumb fools
dhudson369 5 months ago
nobody has never even ben on the moon soooooooooooo...unles aerea 51 is on the moon
oOTHECODFATHEROo 6 months ago
@oOTHECODFATHEROo says the idiot who can't even spell....fucking dumbass
ch1ldpr3d3t0r 5 months ago
@ch1ldpr3d3t0r ha
oOTHECODFATHEROo 5 months ago
If one more cunt comments about the moon having gravity I'm going to fucking hunt you down and beat you to death with my jesus stick.
sphinxart 6 months ago
all authentic "moon movies" were slowed down to half speed, giving the impression of moon gravity. but nowhere does it come close to actual 1/6th moon gravity. the moon landing were a masonic hoax greater than 911. and people until today believe it. even my own parents and siblings are convinced they went, becuase they heard it over and over again in school, newspapers etc. this is the power of the masons. if you have not the real christ, u are easy prey for satans indoctrination.
bluemarkus 6 months ago
@Treblaine Suddenly there's gravity meaning "Normal" or "earth scale" gravity. Listen you fuckwit I'm not interested in getting into a debate over my comment - all I meant was that if you look at the curve of the object falling back to the ground it makes it look like full earth bound gravity. Get it? Got it now? Get over yourself - who the hell made you fucking Youtube police?. I KNOW THERE'S GODDAMN GRAVITY ON THE MOON.
sphinxart 6 months ago
FUNNY
1Nekit1 6 months ago
Aliens: "bloody tourists, just throwing trash everywhere"
Treblaine 6 months ago
See how they are putting a lot of body weight (clip 4) into the throw ..well how is it that they could control their own body forward movement in the moons weak gravity surely they would fall over forward as they let the object go? it seems their body reaction to each throw is the exact way it would be here on earth?...fair comment or no?
WELLBRAN 7 months ago
0:11
Anyone noticed air resistance on clip 2? ;)
Prasulja 7 months ago
@Prasulja
Interesting that one, it appears to be a polythene wrapping he took off one of the equipment packs. I would like to know how the hoaxies explain that while telling us at the same time the wind was blowing a flag.
TheSpiritof1969 7 months ago
Comment removed
Prasulja 7 months ago
Laurel Canyons finest
TheJudsonJames 7 months ago
Its not a matter of whether one was trying to throw further than usual or not- ITS JUST THAT IN 1/6 GRAVITY, EVERYTHING SHOULD GO 6 TIMES FURTHER THAN NORMAL, WITHOUT REALLY TRYING. IS THIS TRYING ENOUGH, THINKTANKS? PMSL
TheJudsonJames 7 months ago
@TheJudsonJames Oh rly? And how far do you think, they were able to throw beeing inside space suits?
HansOloPL 7 months ago
@HansOloPL well if there was zero gravity it would go forever with virtually no effort. yet these dont go anywhere near 6 times further. Indeed when you watch the video with everything doubled it up, it looks remarkably like earth type properties.
TheJudsonJames 7 months ago
Respond to this video... They look like trippin hippies..
TheJudsonJames 7 months ago
you notice how in clip 2 the bag once traveling through the air(space) keeps a rounded shape and once it its the floor, crumbles up? that appears to be caused by the lack of atmosphere. nothing to drag on the bag.
hiimnewt 7 months ago
Suddenly theres gravity on the moon? Interesting. Good post
sphinxart 7 months ago
@sphinxart Uh, yes, the Moon does have gravity. That's a big part of why we have tides and stuff.
bertlapollo 7 months ago 10
@bertlapollo SEE FUCKING REPLIES with jesus on a stick.
sphinxart 6 months ago
@bertlapollo Right!
bat7j 2 months ago
@sphinxart What are you an idiot? Of course there's gravity on the moon. Pick up a physics book.
pobrouse 7 months ago
@sphinxart this is a sped up version of the original clips..you can tell by how the guys move..
cornmon 7 months ago
@sphinxart are you some sort of moron? If there was no gravity they couldn't stand on the moon.
Treblaine 6 months ago
@Treblaine Jesus and you call me a moron?? Go do some research, the moon is 1/6 of the gravity on Earth - the way those object are falling looks like normal gravity is all I was saying. Fucktard.
sphinxart 6 months ago
@sphinxart "suddenly there is gravity" That means you assumed there was NO GRAVITY.
Also you MORON, the video says several times that this video is SPED UP! You can tell by how jittery the astronauts are moving.
The video only makes sense if it was shot at normal speed on a wide surface with 1/6th earth's gravity i.e. the moon, that we visited.
Treblaine 6 months ago
@sphinxart you do know that all mass has gravity right? The moons gravity is 1/6th of earths..... people need to pay attention in school more
paulmkrotine 6 months ago
@paulmkrotine Did you read my other comments? For fuck sake, I regret not being more clear. Somebody please thumb this up before I kill myself. I KNOW THE MOON HAS GRAVITY - to be specific 1/6th of the Earths. WHAT I MEANT WAS THAT THE CURVATURE OF THE OBJECTS THROWN MADE IT LOOK LIKE EARTH BOUND GRAVITY. Christ on a stick I'm done with this. Somebody put me out of my fucking misery.
sphinxart 6 months ago
From now On I'm going to be sarcastic and say "Oh really? The moon has fucking gravity? OH MY GOD. OMG OMG OMG! I have to go tell all my fucking friends. HEY BUDDY! THE MOON HAS GRAVITY! No really! SERIOUS! When they throw shit it falls back down. Yeah. It's just weird how when it's sped up IT FUCKING LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE ON PLANET FUCKING EARTH.
sphinxart 6 months ago
@sphinxart
"Yeah. It's just weird how when it's sped up IT FUCKING LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE ON PLANET FUCKING EARTH."
Ah yeah? The astronauts moved like they were on this Earth?
obaeyens 6 months ago
@obaeyens Oh I give up. Someone shoot me.
sphinxart 6 months ago
@sphinxart It's only the internet...you will never meet any of these hoaxers in real life, unless you go to a restaurant (busboy) car wash, have a ditch dug for you, or have a pizza delivered to your house.
charliegoodboy 4 months ago
@charliegoodboy Too true sir...
sphinxart 4 months ago
@obaeyens then why are their movements so erratic and quick...look at the original..much more fluent and realistic in speed vs the sped up version.
xxxXW4NT3DXxxx 5 months ago
jesus on a fucking stick already. Got it?
sphinxart 6 months ago
@sphinxart wow. epic fail. how are you smart enough to even operate a keyboard?
whitedevil2 2 months ago
@whitedevil2 Read my earlier replies fucktard.
sphinxart 2 months ago
@sphinxart how about you go find them all, gather them together with footnotes and bibliography, and present it to me in a fashion where i give a shit
whitedevil2 2 months ago
@whitedevil2 How about you come over here and get them, I've filed them under "Retard" especially for you. If you don't give a shit, don't comment on things I said out of context.
sphinxart 2 months ago
@sphinxart every mass has gravity, maybe you should take some physics classes
Esudao 1 month ago
They brought back moonrocks, there is no getting around that one simple fact. I guess satellite are fake also, huh?
pupilofreality 9 months ago
Let's get it straight. The moon landing was REAL.
JKTube 10 months ago
What I think is funny is how you guys are so deluded that you think that the objects are behaving just like they would on earth.
The problem is they all stop abruptly when they hit the ground because they are going slower. This happens because static friction comes into play sooner when you are going slower.
So, basically all you did was prove yourself wrong.
Another very funny example is pendulum physics acting differently than you'd expect on earth in sped up footage.
hellomate639 10 months ago
Is this supposed to prove it was fake? Because it's not working that well. Objects hang in the air and fly too high for what little power they put into their throws. The second clip, he just flicks ibis wrist and it goes flying.
cyraxmaster23 1 year ago
So ridiculous. They look like little spastic bastards moving all quick. Yes the objects looks normal but their body speeds are totally wrong.
BradDeLorenzo 1 year ago
I ran an analysis on 3 clips from your montage as suggested by "cosmored"
watch?v=sq6yYQYoX_A
Needless to say he didn't like the outcome and has no answer to it.
Betamax101 1 year ago
Well, I hear the same same bullshit since I was a kid, that men landed on the moon. And I wait untiltoday for the proof. Stupid vids...
SpikeGhost88 1 year ago
It's unnatural.
The3H2SO4 1 year ago
The videos were not slowed down. Mythbusters did an episode where they went on the Zero-G plane and duplicated the moon's gravity and recreated the walking and jumping and it looked exactly the same.
mrgdud22 1 year ago
@mrgdud22 Mythbusters ARE SOME KIND OF GODS IN AMERICA?
I SEE A LOT OF AMERICAN BELIEVING ANYTHING THESE TWO FEED TO YOUR BRAIN.....
denonphyte 1 year ago
@denonphyte nah they just proove idiots like you wrong
mrgdud22 1 year ago
@denonphyte man a lot of Americans don't believe in the moon landing its just gullible people and when you question it they always have one sided debates like a astronomer and some guy who barely knows anything. Ive seen plenty of debates where scientist are just completely stumped don't know how to explain some of these unnatural things.
lilsm555 1 year ago
@lilsm555, I think you need to look closer. I think you'll find clear scientific explanations for almost any bizarre, obscure notion that hoax proponents have. Sometimes scientists can't even understand the nearly illiterate ideas people have about science. It takes a few minutes to even fathom the silly ideas. I'd be happy to tackle any objection you may have.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
I wonna know why the hell they are littering on the moon! LOL
LaFondaBHH 1 year ago 19
@LaFondaBHH It was the 60's. People littered like it was going to go out of style....uh, wait...it did.
medmark77 9 months ago
@LaFondaBHH coz itz funneh
1Nekit1 6 months ago
Wouldnt an object striking the surface of a moon with such low gravity, cause a larger puff of dust? wouldnt it spread a bit more?
l1qu1dm3t4lIV 1 year ago
@l1qu1dm3t4lIV no atmoshere no friction.. therefore the dust fall freely down at level at 1/6 earth gravity. you can also notice the rings they make around they boots when they touch the "ground". .. this can be evidentiated only there on the moon. surely not in a earth studio.
elevenby2 1 year ago
In any gravity u can speed it up to make it look normal
Slyvesta0k 1 year ago
@Slyvesta0k exactly... but beside that.. have you consider that if they slowed down the recording in order to appare a 1/6 erarth gravity... well..the ring waves that the boots are making on the ground.. unfortunately they slow down as well! and if I'm not wrong .. the speed of the waves on the moon (with less gravity and no atmosphere) should be much faster than earth. there you hae it :) you can't fake gravity and not the wave rings!! am I right?
elevenby2 1 year ago
@Slyvesta0k you can also slow it down to look abnormal too! =D
LaFondaBHH 1 year ago
gravity works the same way anywhere in our solar system, granted some plants/moons have a stronger gravitational pull than others. gravity on the moon is just weaker than the earth. it doesn't matter that these guys sped it up to look like the gravity of the earth, we've been to the moon.
monkeyhead360 1 year ago
0:33 If they are in the moon why they throw things so close?, they should throw them very farther.
drgreendick 1 year ago
@drgreendick
Wait, so now you decide how far they should've thrown these stuff? It was faked because they don't throw things as far as you would want them to?
bertlapollo 1 year ago 5
@bertlapollo he is talking about gravity. on the moons 1/6th of earths gravity objects would have more hangtime due to there being less gravitational pull. So objects would stay in the air much longer and probably travel much faster too, due too there being no atmosphere.
michaelchristie2008 9 months ago
@bertlapollo NO i KNOW WHAT HE MEANS HE HAS A GOOD POINT
MyOtherBeaver 8 months ago
@drgreendick
i think you have a valid point.
just because of the lack of atmosphere and gravity.
i would think a normal "flick of the wrist" toss would have these effects.
looks like they put alittle more effort into the toss than that.
but it might just be the speeding up process? im no expert.
l1qu1dm3t4lIV 1 year ago
@drgreendick they probably could throw them further, but was that the point? were they TRYING to throw it far?
cabot2jville2010 11 months ago
'
why 2 men throws things on the ground,,,
are that litter things
bestamerica 1 year ago
they will find those in 20 years and say: thats the proof!!! aliens lived here.
dafaucas 1 year ago
High-area objects are spinning in a most non-aerodynamic manner. Also, it seems, sped up, like the astronauts are throwing VERY hard, and the objects aren't leaving their hands very fast, and not slowing down at all as they fly. Obviously no atmosphere.
boulderdsvo 1 year ago
what is the Shadow on bottem right at :39?
mizfit32 1 year ago
@mizfit32
That would be the shadow of the other astronaut. :)
bertlapollo 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
volec55 1 year ago
Comment removed
volec55 1 year ago
@mizfit32 its was an alien aaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh
volec55 1 year ago
TheJomongogo: "You do realize that it's just a bunch of beeps and shit noise that would mean nothing to you right?"
Thats like saying an Important Document in a FAX being sent to me means nothing to me because I answered it with a Telephone instead of a FAX Machine.
Don't you realize yet that you DID NOT DEBUNK this? Or are so delusional that you still think you debunked every piece of evidence that proves man was not walking around on another planet?
You can not debunk this. No one can.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
what i was TRYING to do was just state a small bit of fun trivia that clearly most people don't know.
defilerzero1 1 year ago
The moon landing is a very sinister issue in my opinion, and goes much deeper than what the classic observer might think.
X0daraP 1 year ago
Sinister?
What makes it sinister?
thirdclass2006 1 year ago
The moon landing was real in my opinion because we definitely have the technology and it is theoretically possible and not totally unrealistic. The military has technology way ahead of what we know, yet landing on the moon is possible even by classic textbook standards.
One then might ask why there was so much suspicion regarding the moon landing. I'll tell you why. They have every right to be suspicious because some very strange things were going on there that NASA was trying to hide.
X0daraP 1 year ago
Firstly they were trying to cover up the fact that the moon has earth gravity. Secondly they were trying to cover up that the moon has a breathable atmosphere and thirdly they were trying to cover up the fact that NASA used anti-gravity propulsion when taking off from the moon. That's why there was no dust cloud.
Now you might laugh but that's just because your indoctrinated. Do the research. I know I have.
X0daraP 1 year ago
If the moon really had gravity as strong as Earth's, the ocean tides would be much larger than they are now.
If there was a breathable atmosphere, we would've known about it long before we got to the moon. Ever hear of occulations?
And there was dust kicked up by the lander's engine.
So, you obviously have NOT done research.
thirdclass2006 1 year ago
I think you meant occultations when you said occulations (correct me if i am wrong). When the sun is occulted by the moon a thin atmospheric fringe is indeed visible. This is not the sun's corona because the thin fringe is visible during a partial eclipse of the sun! And whether of not dust was kicked up is irrelevant unless we can access the original tapes.
X0daraP 1 year ago
Citation for this event?
What difference would using the original tapes make?
thirdclass2006 1 year ago
@thirdclass2006
Tidal theory is in a sad mess... w w w . w b a b i n . n e t/mathis/mathis21.htm... so it would be risky to make any quantitative claims based on it. Too many factors to take into consideration. Who exactly is "we" anyway. The general public follows and believes mass media, end of story. It's been shown so many times. Think about the indoctrination in Hitler's time.
X0daraP 1 year ago
"We" as in the scientific community.
Too many factors to consider?
Sun, moon, Earth...what else?
Don't pull a Hitler card on me.
thirdclass2006 1 year ago
We can chat on pm if you want. I cant fit my replies in here and don't want to fill this place up with them.
X0daraP 1 year ago
@X0daraP
Just a URL will do.
thirdclass2006 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thirdclass2006
w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m/watch?v=K42UqWGdA_o at 00:00 when analyzed fully the bottom right section of fringe around the moon should be dimmer according to the radial propagation of the corona, which it is not. The full corona does not even stretch as far. Through calculation the thinnest part of the fringe seems to be 24 km which is realistic.
X0daraP 1 year ago
So the dimwit timrocket actualy thinks the ISS astronauts are not weightless. I'm sure if you put a scale under them they would in fact be weightless.
lotanerve 1 year ago
Whos seeing the Sail at 0:37 - 0:39 ???
Wer sieht das seil an dem der Astronaut befestigt ist ?
DeceptionFlavour 1 year ago
@DeceptionFlavour
Ich denke, das sie mit dem Englischen "Sail" etwas Anderes meint. Ein (Englischen) Sail ist was mann in der Deutsche Spräche ein Segel nennt.
bertlapollo 1 year ago
The speedup should be sqrt(6) = 2.45x, not 2x.
But it still doesn't look quite like earth. The objects fly too high and too far for the small movements of the astronaut arms that throw them. That's because, while you can scale velocity and acceleration by changing time, you can't scale ENERGY. For the same reason, speeding up the astronauts walking doesn't look right either.
ApolloWasReal 1 year ago
@thirdclass2006" the exhaust gases was only 1.5 psi"
Yea "exhaust gases" with no where to go in a "vacuum"
you must have been left back in the 6th grade 3 times.
1.5 psi to land a 5000lbs craft.
You might as well believe in Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
The math doesn't lie, bub.
The thrust was reduced to about 3000 lbs.
That thrust, spread over an area of the 54 inch nozzle gives you a pressure of 1.5psi.
It's not pressure that holds up the craft, it's the thrust.
Try reading up on rocketry, Tim.
Oh that's right, you don't believe in the laws of motion.
thirdclass2006 1 year ago
@thirdclass2006 There is 0.0psi in this case since there is no outlet, not 1.5 which makes it not even plausible for such a rocket lander.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
No outlet?
Where do you suppose the exhaust gases from the rocket engine go?
You've shown yourself to be ignorant of even the basics of rocketry, so why should you be believed when you say what is and isn't plausible?
Like I told you, it's thrust that matters, not pressure.
thirdclass2006 1 year ago
once you speed up the film exactly as much as NASA slowed it down, you can clearly see that it was filmed on Earth NOT the Moon.
They definitely Faked the Moon Landings.
timrocket2008 2 years ago
Doesn't work that way.
First off, their arms don't move naturally.
Second, the dust does not behave as it would in a atmosphere.
Altering film speed does not give evidence of a hoax. You must be able to refute ALL aspects of Apollo.
thirdclass2006 2 years ago
@thirdclass2006 First off, like I said if you speed up the film exactly AS MUCH AS NASA slowed it down, YOU CAN SEE IT WAS FILMED ON EARTH. The arm movements look perfectly natural and thats a Fact.
Second, That is NOT dust, it is called Sand.
Altering film is what NASA did. It is only re-altered to it's original speed.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
So how much does the original footage need to be sped up by in order for the gravity to look the same?
bertlapollo 1 year ago
And the proof that the film was slowed down is what?
Yes, it is dust. It is a powdery material that resembles ash, in fact, as it holds the shape of impressions very well.
Look Tim, you're a person that doesn't understand the basic physics of space travel, so why should I believe you?
thirdclass2006 1 year ago
@thirdclass2006 Yes, it is dust. It is a powdery material that resembles ash, in fact, as it holds the shape of impressions very well.
Yea I love how it holds the shape of the blast crater that they forgot to put under the stage prop. lol
Physics of space: You still weight the same in space as you do on Earth.
Correct me if I am wrong for once.
You think that on the ISS the astronauts are wieghtless because you are a dimwit.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
Allow me to correct you, because you are wrong. One has the same mass; the weight is different.
bertlapollo 1 year ago 6
@bertlapollo Yep you're right.
On ISS: your weight is 0, your mass is whatever it was on earth, moon, or whatever.
vava54own 1 year ago
@vava54own actually their weight is not zero it is a significant portion of their weight on the surface. the reason you experience weightlessness is because in orbit you are in freefall. its the same thing as if you go on one of those amusement park rides that drops you straight down and you release a penny or something to see it "float" in front of you.
defilerzero1 1 year ago
@defilerzero1
Yes, I do understand what how weightlessness works.
Now, about not having a null weight in orbit... let me explain how it work.
Your weight here on a balance: 150 lbs
On the moon, with the same balance: ~25 lbs
On the ISS, again, with the same balance: 0lbs
You can't weight something in orbit, unless there is an acceleration. If the acceleration is equal to 9.8 m/s, then you will weight the same thing that you would on earth. Your mass is constant, though, even in space.
vava54own 1 year ago
@vava54own ugh... ok i wasn't looking for this but here goes. just because you can't weigh things with our usual machines for it doesn't mean it doesn't have weight which is the force exerted by gravity. there is most definitely an acceleration in orbit its how you stay in orbit and don't just shoot off into space, theres a centripetal acceleration towards the center of the earth (from gravity) just because you don't feel the effects of weight doesn't mean it isnt there.
defilerzero1 1 year ago
@bertlapollo the video didnt need speeding up this much. compare the speed of the original to the speed of the pendulum video on youtube, its already considerably faster than the 'original' speed version.
daenumen 1 year ago
@bertlapollo The furthest man has ever gone or any mass for that matter is 400 miles into space. You weigh the same in Space. Even if you went 4000 miles away you would still weigh at least half what you do On the Surface of Earth. No man has or any mass in Earth Magnetic field has ever gone any further than 400-450 miles above Earth despite What NASA trys to claim. They claim this because people like you will believe them and in turn, it justifies their existence and the consumption of your $
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008
Oh really?
bertlapollo 1 year ago
@bertlapollo Nah I was just joking.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008
Wow you moon hoaxers will believe and repeat any old shit you are told by other hoaxers.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
@TheJomogogo NASA are the" Moon Hoaxers" You seem to have taken the same English class as everyone else who pathetically tries to debunk the massive amounts of damning evidence that proves it was all a Hoax time and time again. It is truly pathetic for an Adult to actual believe in something like this.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008
Timerocket every hoax theory ever put forth has been easily debunked and proven wrong with a few facts, but no matter how many times a hoax advocate gets his ass handed to him in an argument he just wanders off and repeats the same tired shit somewhere else.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
@TheJomogogo Name one. I see them called debunked many times but never actually debunked except for the "no stars" and stupid ones. I have been researching for 16 years for proof that they went to the Moon and nothing they have is actual proof.
You people say they tracked them all the way to the Moon. How come no one in the entire world came forth with any type of telemetry data recordings? If NASA really had any, they would release it to Public Domain.They don't have them/ Nonexistent
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008
Name one?
How about ALL OF THEM.
You bring one up I'll shoot it down for you.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
@TheJomogogo I just did and you ignored it.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008
The telemetry data? Just google "apollo mission telemetry data" and stop wallowing in ignorance.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
@TheJomogogo I did that already knuckle head. I mean that should be obvious to you if you read my post. They only say there is but where the F is it? If it were true they would release it to Public Domain.. You can find alot of talk about Apollo Telemetry Data recordings. Big deal! Lets see them! We can't because they probably do not exists. I would bet my life on it that they don't. But you call this debunked because you are an ignorant blind fool. I knew you couldn't even debunk the 1st one.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008
You do realize that it's just a bunch of beeps and shit noise that would mean nothing to you right?
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
@TheJomogogo First of all you are absolutely wrong and totally ignorant to what it even is so it means nothing to YOU. So how can someone who knows nothing about what I am even talking about shoot it down? " Its just a bunch of beeps" That made me laugh BTW.
You can not debunk this. No one can.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008
Seems to be a simple "if I ran the zoo" argument to me.
bertlapollo 1 year ago
@bertlapollo well if all you read are children books I would expect this result.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008
Hehe, way to avoid the issue raised.
bertlapollo 1 year ago
@bertlapollo lol, I don't blame you.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008 -- Telemetry data is always turned into information ("data" is NOT the same as "information") and then the original data is usually thrown away because it is useless in its original form. There would be no reason whatsoever for anyone to keep the original telemetry data from Apollo. I suppose they may have kept some of it for historical purposes, but nobody would have much of a use for it, so there would be no purpose in going to the expense of publishing it.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep Ha Ha thats a laugh. "None would have much use for it" If anyone had real TD of anything being tracked to the Moon, they would be RICHER than Bill Gates!!! NASA spends $15,000 on a book to debunk the evidence but could not debunk the nonexistence of the TD so they never published it...and you think you did. Pretty pathetic.
Like I said, you can not debunk this no one can. Until there is telemetry data to prove they were tracked to the Moon then nobody tracked anything to the Moon.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008 -- No. The original telemetry data is worthless. It is analyzed and turned into information and then it is thrown away.
.
It certainly would not make someone "richer than Bill Gates."
.
And if they DID keep some of it and make it public, you would just claim that it was faked. Everybody knows that you would just claim it is fake. So you are not really doing anything to advance your argument by demanding to see it. (Besides, you wouldn't know what to do with it anyway)
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep You can not fake telemetry data Mr. Ignorant. You do not even understand what it even is and you make excuses for it not existing.
Like I said No one can debunk this proof, No body.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008 -- OK, then. Enlighten me, Mr. Smart.
.
WHY can you not fake telemetry data? I am particularly interested in this because the basis of a large part of the argument of many hoax-theory promoters is that the thousands of engineers who were monitoring the telemetry were monitoring "faked" data. You will need to refute a whole bunch of your fellow hoax-theory cult members with your answer.
.
So -- please tell us WHY it cannot be faked.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep You are just making things up now. Thousands of engineers reading fake telemetry data? Not true. There were about 15 people watching monitors and then broadcasting video. You are not fully aware of the evidence that leads people to believe it was all a hoax. Which is why you argue it. Thats is called ignorance.
Why can't you fake the TD recordings? Because something would have to physically be out as far as the wave lengths read on the TD recordings.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008 -- No. There were thousands of people at a dozen different companies analyzing telemetry data to make sure the systems that they had designed were functioning properly. Just because you see the couple dozen people in the control room doesn't mean that other people don't exist.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep "thousands of people at a dozen different companies analyzing telemetry data" It only takes one person to analyze. but you "think " THOUSANDS!!!
That makes me laugh.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008 -- I know it makes you laugh. But that is only because you don't know anything about how aerospace operates. I work in aerospace.
.
Each system in ANY test vehicle (not just Apollo, but any new jet or anything) has a team of engineers who designed it and are responsible for its operation. Every fuel tank, rocket motor, door, life-support oxygen tank, water supply unit, etc. EVERYTHING. Each has a data stream which is beamed back and analyzed by the WHOLE egineering team.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep Thats crap! "Beamed back" from where?
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008 -- ANY flight test of ANY experimental commercial or military aircraft or space craft operates basically the same way. It has the same kinds of teams of hundreds (or, since the vehicle was so complex and its operation was so critical) in the case of Apollo, thousands of engineers analyzing data from the telemetry.
.
And the teams of engineers on the Apollo project were from multiple private companies all over the country. They designed it. They tracked its performance.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep Thats stupid. If any of that were true then someone would have recordings on magnetic film. ALL of it must be on magnetic film. This film should exists but doesn't.
This is my main problem. If I can get my hands on some actual Telemetry recordings, then I will finally have proof that it was not a Hoax. And hypothetically speaking, I would dismiss all of the other evidence and inconsistencies as" well there must be some logical "explanation". But I just don't see that happening.
timrocket2008 1 year ago
@timrocket2008 -- I'm curious -- what kind of data would you expect to find on the telemetry tapes? What format would it be in? How would you read it? And how would you interpret it? (those last two questions are vastly different questions, by the way.)
nesokretep 1 year ago
Also, about deleting the raw telemetry data, we're talking 1970. It wasn't the same as 2010, where terabytes are cheap. Data tapes cost money, and lots of tapes cost lots of money. All the subcontractors were for-profit businesses. They didn't delete the original data once it was analyzed to hide anything, they reused the tapes simply to save money. I suspect it never even occurred to them someone might deny the landings.
boulderdsvo 1 year ago
@boulderdsvo -- I've worked with 1970's & 1980's data library resources. Not engineering data but finance data at an aerospace company. I've even been responsible for forgetting to keep a key master file index of lots of the info from the old system. hahaha ... It's a good thing we haven't needed it for the IRS or something.
.
It's really easy to have an "oops" even with data that you consider important. That and anything from 1969 would likely be largely unreadable by now anyway.
nesokretep 1 year ago