just wondering how would they explain the crosshairs that are behind some of the objects in some of the pictures supposedly taken during the moon landing.
@bindoy It is caused by overexposure: the bright white areas of the emulsion "bleed" over the thin black crosshairs. The crosshairs are only about 0.004 inch thick (0.1 mm) and emulsion would only have to bleed about half that much to fully obscure it. There are many photos where the middle of the crosshair is "washed-out" but the rest is intact. In some photos of the flag, parts of one crosshair appear on the red stripes, but parts of the same crosshair are invisible on the white stripes.
Proof by mythbusters owned by the Discovery channel is like proof by computer animation of pancaking WTC floor trusses by NIST.
The biggest proof regarding the Apollo missions legitimacy is the crystal clear photographs made by a Hasselblad camera with no lead shield whatsoever. Hasselblad confirmed this. The Van Allen radiation belt would have clouded the crap out of the film.
@maurikid23 Okay, it wasn't that the test was biased per se. But yeah, I'll admit the test was shit. Mainly cause they are busting way too specific a myth, the only thing they are busting is that any fine moondust like material could hold the bootprint in a vacuum (without moisture). That's pretty easy to bust and they did no prob.
The biggest problem is they had wholey different lighting conditions in the vacuum chamber as they did on the moon, so the results look completely different.
Now tell me the print they made in the lab looks anything like what was pictured on the supposed moon .
And tell me that in 1969 with all those fine cars the Americans made if you think they could go to the moon before the Russians and why look for rocks we already knew they were there, fuck people still believe the Pope is holy and Jews are special to a god figure ...come on get real stupid!
@FrankaDith > Now tell me the print they made in the lab looks anything like what was pictured on the supposed moon .
Yup, the prints taken from the TEN THOUSAND PICTURES they took do look remarkably like the moon, considering they were taken there.
> why look for rocks we already knew they were there.
but we did not know what they were made of. Now that we have been able to study them indepth it has totally changed the theory of what created the moon. The moon rocks aren't merely props.
@SirMildred76 So what did we learn about the origin of the moon,30 years ago we speculated that an asteroid hit the earth and tore off a chunk ,what do we know for sure now? and no those prints don't look anything alike besides he jump off the lander with both feet where is the other print Mildred?
@FrankaDith it's hard to elaborate in such a small space, but to summarise: the three theories being tossed around before Apollo (The Capture Theory (as you mentioned), the Fission Theory, and the condensation Theory) We brought back over 1/4 tonne of rocks (not 'a few') that have been examined by over hundreds of scientists from dozens of labs and the general consensus is refered to as the Giant Impact Theory. Science is awesome like that, preachers don't throw out whole theories wholesale.
@FrankaDith In an email you mentioned "we can tell anything from the mass and constitution of any planet and start we can see with any telescope" & this is very very true! We can tell a lot from the wavelengths of light that we pick up when we look at stuff like the Moon. And what is really really cool is that we can match ALL the rocks we got from the moon to not just the Moon itself, but each of the individual landing sites! I hope that would give you some pause, you seem open minded enuf.
@SirMildred76 I was a young man when Grand-Father mentioned he didn't believe and i had a critical eye on the world since then ,although science moves on like this was a fact and we move on ,i will remain a sceptic until it feels real with my inner self ,i wont go into it but i know this wouldn't be the first lie coming out of Washington.
Nice talking to you ,and i invite you to share the video ive sent you : )
@FrankaDith If you want to know what the results of real conspiracies and lies coming out of Washington look at Watergate, look at Colin Powell lying to the UN about WMD's in Iraq. These were incompetent lies that were quickly exposed. Powell didn't fake 10,000 photos and hundreds of hours of video. The few photos they had were vague, grainy, and small. And the 10,000 photos that were the result of the moon missions were secondary to the primary mission of science, which can't be discredited.
@SirMildred76 Have to admit your cool disposition and none agressive style is more disarming and rings more true than the attacks I've had the last few days ,ill rethink my stance ,but don't know the outcome ,in any case i have nothing to win or lose true or false, thanks for the conversation.
Im chuckling reading all the comments from the Moon Hoax CTers. I imagine in 100 years we will have the tech affordable so that the rich can fly to the moon and eventually people like those CTers can. Chances are they will say that proves nothing.....NASA used invisible HAARP mindrays to make me hallucinate seeing the original moon landing site......enjoy living in fantasyland
Proves nothing! You cannot re-create exact conditions on the moon here; even NASA couldn't anticipate everything; so how do you expect us to think you can? This is pure B.S. The Russian government would have beat you to proving a fake; and they have better resources than you. You debunked absolutely nothing!
This experiment debunks nothing, the powder should have been tested for zero moisture content and also it should have been tipped out onto the tray with zero moisture in the environment around it so it couldn't be contaminated...try again!!!
@Mozart1220 You presume to know my stance on the Moon landings but I make no mention of this. My comment was about the way the experiment was conducted. If you're going to claim to 'debunk' something at least do it with an experiment that has had as many variables controlled as possible. You must have questioned that when you watched the video??
@YbborNetsrek Right, yeah, NASA -- the tyrannical super-organization out to convince the world via ingenious fraudulent machinery that their existence is not only justified but meaningful as well. Yeah. Sure. Yeah.
@monokhem This is not about science i do believe in science i not believe in NASA, sorry. Other thing all tecnology NASA know about rockets was stolen from the German Nazis, Wherner Von Braun was german he did a lot of rockets to Germans you can see in a lot of films in you tube. You probably proud about NASA, but i not believe in NASA, they fake things is true! They know exist UFO and have technology hinded, we have proof of that to much proof, maybe one day you awake and see the truth.
@monokhem Go to the FBI site and look for UFO files. Conspiracy theorists won this battle against the lies american government impose to the american people. See in the cae of the Mythbusters they laughed and discredit conspiracy theorists because is a plan to make you believe this is true. If you can see in the film they use the sand very like moon sand. I know the man landing on the moon but was not that time. Maybe today is possible to landng in the moon.
@rogodoy12 Just because it's a UFO doesn't mean it's aliens. All it means it is a flying object that has not been identified. That's what the acronym means. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to realize why the US government would be interested in this, as the idea of foreign powers potentially flying aircraft over US airspace is something to be taken seriously and investigated.
what she said at the very end is wrong she said that if the moons gravity is less than the earths it would be easier... but since everything is lighter on the moon it wouldnt have made a print as sharp it would have been very dull and not as deep
@rogodoy12 They didn't. The method they used was a vacume chamber and there is no way we ever had a vacume chamber that big. It's the biggest hole in the moon hoax theory. Things in the videos clearly had to happen in a vacume, and the area they were working in was to big for a vacume chamber.
@monokhem Sorry, I dont want to stay here discussing this, but NASA has A bigger water tank for all this fakes, they have a small picture from the footprint. The same footpring is possible do with water. The mythbusters did that you see. Iike the mytth buster because they are dumb they showed is possible do the fakes ont the earth. I believe the man moonlanding there are too mistakes everywhere. Think, why they did that?
@rogodoy12 A water tank does not produce a vacume, and in no way could be used to produce any of what you are calling fake. You can't make dust one earth behave like lunar dust. Look at the perfect trackable arcs the dust makes when the Astronaughts kick them into the air. That proves the vacume. The framing proves that there was at least a 5 square mile vacume on Appolo 16. There is no way we could have ever had a vacume chamber that big. Your theory has been disproven.
@monokhem Yes, it is possible do the same on water tanks, you probably never see one, in the pictures, movies? Dust behave like in the same way in the water tank. You know this i dont want to teach you. NASA has various tanks. Is possible do this kind of film with 48 frames camera too. Vacuum isnot diferent in from earth atmosphere the diference you do not know is there absence of ai wind, but it work the same way in our earth as in the moon. The absence of air and wind makes a vacuum.
@monokhem this way no 5 square mile for vacuum needed because absence of air and wind is possible to eliminate and do it on earth, I do for you the same footage they did in my home is easy. You can fake every single bit of NASA footage on earth. Never we can prove this is fake because they very well. Nasa is good faking things.
@rogodoy12 There is no 5 square mile area in your home. There was no faking. If it was fakeed like you said, it would be easy to prove. You would only have to look at the atmosphere interacting with the dust, which would have been impossible for them to fake or duplicate on earth.
@monokhem I try to explain to you again: in a vacuum there are absence of air and consequently no wind. the gravity acts like a bit on earth because the moon gravity is lower, but it has gravity! Gravity behaves equal in the moon and in the earth the difference it is lower, it makes possible the escape velocity easy all the particle in the surface will behave like inside a water tank or using a 48 fps camera. This fakes the the particles junping when the astronauts walk.
@monokhem No need a 5 square mile area to do this is possible do in normal atmosfere on earth as the Mythbuster did on the experiment. If you see there is a photo and not a hole image with background on the footprint of the astronaut. I tell you i do if you want to prove i am right, i do for you the footprints equal in the photo , i do the particles moving very like in the astronaut films. Is all fakes. I ever need to do because Mythbusters did all ready.
@rogodoy12 A 5 squre envirnment is what they did it in. the video clearly shows that. If you are not going to work un your understanding of history and physics you could at least brush up on the english language. Seriously half of what you say makes no sense.
@monokhem I need to write in another language because english is not the language you probably understand. You are in a country people like believe in everything. If they say is true you believe it is not about science or physics is about cover up. FBI and NASA do this do you remember Roswell caseconspiracy theorists was right about the FBI cover up, because if you donot know they are fully documented in they site. I think you certify about your beliefs first, this is not about my knowledege.
@rogodoy12 Don't get me worng, I totaly respect that you are bilingual, but what I'm telling you is that large portions of your posts don't make any sense.
Your generalizations about me and my countrymen are way off base. Just because I don't believe in your pet conspiracy theory does not mean I fall for everything I'm told. The Moon landings have been proven to have happened. You have fallen for a trick.
The truth about Roswell is I don't know and niether do you.
@rogodoy12 There is no image in fucking earth man cannot do it. I do, i know to do special effects, like you see in films very perfectly. Real fake is easy to do you never know what is real than wath is not. Stanley Kubrik was very competent filmaker if was him to do this film, that is the man. He liked to do a film that make you believe it is true. He liked this if he died with this secret, he died happy because he was a genius. Iknow a lot of people that do this effects very easy.
@rogodoy12 there are a lot of people and filmakers that do this film for NASA fakers, Walt disney studios do this because they are slickers from USA democracy they possible did to and others filmakers will do for the NASA, fakes is easy to do! Mythbusters are Illuminatis they love tecnocracy they love USA. I believe that moonlanding was real, because i want to believe. Since FBI proved conspiracy theorists right in the Roswell case, FBI fully documented in it site. Who will believe in NASA?
No, it is not like the footprint of the astronaut is fake! Just you believe. Now what about the photografic film? It is not possible todo pictures like that with a simple photografic camera. The film is not protected.
THIS IS A ZIO STRAW MAN CON JOB. HERE IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW. THERE IS NO MOISTURE IN THE SURFACE AT 280 DEGREES IN DAYTIME. GIVE ME A BREAK. THE BOOTS I SAW, SUPPOSED TO BE THE REAL ONES. WOULDN'T HAVE HELD UP HALF THAT HOT. I'M SERIOUS. THIS IS A REAL SHAM BY LOWLIFES. LOOK WHAT ELSE THE SAME PEOPLE HAVE DONE.
No, not the moon landing, the conspiracy theorists!
person: ??
Ok, because there far more evidence for the moon landing than against it, the conspiracy theorists KNOW we landed on the moon, but try to disprove it so that they can demoralize the scientific community! Why? THEY ARE AFRAID OF PROGRESS! There, case closed.
Conspiracy theorist: LIES!!!
I have just as much evidence for my theory as you have for faking the moon landing.
In addition, if you quit reading rag tabloids and actually do some honest research, you might just discover how the orbital path was designed to bypass the Van Allen belt. You might also discover how solar activity was a great concern to all. One day, we will return and visit the landing sites with the flags and lunar rover and foot prints. Of course, people like you will say that all the it was planted there.
Actually, after the successful moon landing, the USSR declared that they were no longer interested in a lunar landing. They did not bother to explain why. As far as RDF tracking, the precise direction of the radio signals from the lunar module were tracked by many nations; not just USA Allies. The signals originated from the moon and the spacecraft orbiting the moon. I was getting my post secondary education when all this happened. What were you doing?
There 3 factors that prove the success of the Apollo program. First, every physical claim of "proof" that no one landed on the moon has been proven wrong. Second, no one has come forward with any credible evidence as to where the lunar landing "hoax" was created and who created it. Finally, the Russians know the landing was real because they tracked it by their own RDF (radio direction finder). It was a monumental failure on their part to be the first. They would be the first to scream fake!
@ccryder1149 They do scream fake! We can't predict solar flares now, let alone 43 years ago! The van allen belt is all the proof you need. Every country screams and knows we didn't go to the moon, it's old news, but if you ask someone in, Russia, or anywhere, they will say, duh it's fake...FAKE...FAKE!!!
@stephen2152002 No they don't. Only fools like you that happen to live in other countries do that. Don't liable the rest of the world. The vast majority are thoroughly convinced we went to the moon. Your arguement is fake.
the space suits are still secrets. Clinton wanted to give then to the Chinese as a show of friendship, he only got his pals to give saturn 5 plans. They are made to work in a vacuum and the sunny side is like 250F and minus 250f on the shady side. So obviously the pressure bladder is not the fabric part thats the protective cover.
another thing that goes against any hoax theory is that the regolith is a very fine powdery dust unlike the sand used in the experiment. the regolith particles are of the order of μm so being in direct sight of bombardment by the solar radiation, they tend to pick up electric charge which would stay for a long time until another opposite or neutrally charged body touches those particles. in the apollo, the astronaut shoe did just that, binding the particles.
What's this? You got this stuff from NASA? It could be the same stuff they used to make the phony footprints. Besides, was the temperature 250 degrees?
@bammbamm12 Okay, lets not lose sight that they are only busting one claim. And the claim by the hoaxtards is that *no* material would be able to hold such a crisp image in a vacuum because water would be needed to hold the material together. In a vacuum all water would be boiled away and would not exist in the material.
The only real quality in regalith that allows this to happen is the shape of the particles, they are sharp and irregular, they have not been eroded smooth like on earth.
@SirMildred76 - I was skeptical, but then convinced by Astronaut Gene Cernan's interview. But still, if you're accusing NASA of synthesizing everything, you can't prove the accuser wrong when you use the sand they synthesized to demonstrate the fallacy. In other words, you must first believe that there's no difference between the stuff they used in the experiment, and actual moon dust. That now has to be proven.
@bammbamm12 "In other words, you must first believe that there's no difference between the stuff they used in the experiment, and actual moon dust. That now has to be proven."
If the myth is that the only way such a crisp image could be held together is in a material saturated with water, and then you take out all the water, it doesn't matter what material you use, the specific myth is busted.
There will always be some other explanation, and thus another "myth" to bust.
@MrJbblood "Y did they change the control? U cant go from sand 2 shit that NASA made..."
Because the moon isn't made of sand (no matter what Jarrah White would wish). That NASA made the artificial regalith is meaningless. Is it some conspiracy that they would use extra realistic regalith or something? I mean, what's the problem with the artificial regalith?
... if you watch the video you can see the motion as illustrated in this video but then in the original video this happens, then after about 30 seconds the flag is completely stationary for about 1 minute or so and then starts waving again... hmm
Wouldn't it prove that NASA did ( LOL ) go to the Moon if they COULDN'T do it ?
You can't busted a myth/fact about the Moon on Earth it proves NASA could fake it too !?
Fact is NASA say's they may go to the Moon in 20 years time .... Why they did it FORTY YEARS AGO ! For a start my phones go more computing power than any of NASA computers at that time, CGI is so good they could fake anything they want today !!!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No matter how much NASA pours suger on their shit, they can never sell it to smart people as pudding, except to those gullible conservative republican Christian bullshit-believing retards because these cowards can't handle the truth. Why can't NASA just admit to the hoaxes? It's not like we have the power to get a refund on hundreds of billions of tax payer's hard earned money.
thats not a good way to disprove a theory, using a powder manufactured by the very agency that is accused of lying about the moon landing by conspiracist. the fact is, that powder ISNT actual moon dust . just saying. Mythbusters failed again.
@Fpockets Oh yes, because a T.V show could get dirt from the moon, seeing as going to the moon is difficult enough. Really, they didn't fail they did everything they could for people who don't the the technology to actually go to the moon, and seeing as there are people out there who don't believe anything they shouldn't watch this anyway because they wont ever agree.
On the bad astronomy site it is stated: "Ironically, the dust around the landing site was probably a bit thicker than before, since the dust blown out would have piled up there." This is given as a reason for the clear footprints close to the Lander. So why is there no dust on the Lander feet?
@SirMildred76 "Google LRO" I have. "The telescope was built" Currently there is no! telescope on this planet built to show much about the moon. "It imaged the landing sites. Everything was there" Really? All I see are pictures that resemble a pile of dog shit in a snow storm. Do better than that next time. Btw, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm nothing more than an intrigued party about space.
@SirMildred76 everything was there? All i saw was dark pixels.... You cant expect people to believe in the moonlanding when the LRO pictures are a disgrace where nothing can be discerned.
@BlueNem0 Please point me to a telescope that can see a 3 foot long flag that's 230,000 miles away. Oh right, none exist. (probably the reason we send astronauts and satellites up to get images)
@john17972 That's because they are in completely different lighting contiditions. Strange enough they couldn't replicate the lighting conditions in the tiny vacuum chamber what with the original being lit by the SUN and nothing else.
what about the support wires seen in other vids?... and think about the fact that mythbusters didn't get the exact same moon dust but replica dust...tampered dust in other words "very similar " the show says...lol fixed
@Toaks21 There's no support wires seen in any videos taken on the moon. You can occasionally see the antennea on the backpack (which is only like 1 foot long at the most).
@Toaks21 There have never been any 'support wires' that I've seen which weren't merely film glare or the astronauts' antennas, and if the material they were using is tampered dust... WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?! The Mythbusters are not going to get ACTUAL lunar regolith in order to shove a boot into it! Go to the moon and look at the prints yourself, if you so wish. Otherwise, this is as good as it gets.
@JPLyokoWarrior hence it is as if we are supposed to believe it or question it. and openly accept take educational comments like ur self...right ?im just saying
the only thing they did scientifically is prove they can't make a foot print like in the photo oh wait a minute i misspoke, they did it in wet sand. yea!!!!!!!!!!!!! like they said in this video. you guys suck donky dick.
they think were all stupid because anybody can see from those flaccid gloves they are at one earth atmosphere. no vacuum at all 03:08 also that imprint looked to be only at best one eighth of an inch deep, not deep enough to collapse on itself. this is not science here. this is designed to deceive. mythbusters you guys suck donkey dick.
No no no, guys,we didnt fake the moon landing so we could say that we beat the russians. we actually did go there but the moon landing was recreated in a studio so people wouldnt see the alien civilisations, UFO's and Tupac up there.
The sand was sent from NASA who obviously would want to keep the landing secret if it was faked. So they would obviously send some special sand that resembles wet sand and not Lunar sand. Think about it; NASA would want to keep the moon landing quiet if it was faked. Why would America fake this? Because Russia were becoming far more advanced and sent the first dog to space, so America was competing to be the Biggest Power and faked the first man on the moon. Just a theory, i'm no expert.
HEY EVERYBODY!! You really need to concentrate on the absolutely conclusive evidence that the glove in the chamber has ZERO vacuum against it. You CANNOT manually bend a finger against even if it was at 10 PSI. Nothing on this planet can change this. You have to have the same structure as a real astronaut glove to do this.NEVER A simple layered glove!!! The chamber is a vacuum chamber yes, but the door and glove on it is for a contamination chamber . They swapped doors!!
That's not a vacuum either. The gloves are wrinkled and he makes a thumbs up. Anyway, that's not a good enough footprint to compare to Aldrin. Mythbusters are fucking retarded
@DiSoNeNcBoI Yeah, I understand that, but what does that have to do with the claim they are testing? Additionally they made many different kinds of movements while on the moon. Some small and subtle, others quick. you can see many times in the videos of them moving around them kicking up the regolith (which falls back down in perfect vacuumless arcs). You can also see them moving around without kicking it up.
Basically, what I'm asking is, what is your point?
@DiSoNeNcBoI What would that have to do wether or not regolith in a vacuum can hold such a distinct image as seen in the photos of the famous footprint photo taken on the moon? They are testing a very specific claim and what you are suggesting has nothing to do with wether that claim is true or not.
THERE IS NO VACUUM IN THAT CHAMBER!!! If there was,the gloves would appear to be inflated and wrinkle free. It is also near impossible to create the vacuum of space in a chamber and then be able to stick your hands insid Notice the thickness of that chamber and glass? You think you can just have some flimsy gloves to withstand space vacuum but then need 1-2 inches of glass/metal on everything else? Not only is this test invalid but you are seeing conclusive evidence that they trying to deceive.
@kevin067 -- Yes, that is a standard experimental vacuum chamber.
And yes, those are the gloves that are normally used in the vacuum.
And yes, that is what they look like when they are used in the vacuum.
The fact that you can't see all the layers of their structure merely means that you can't see all the layers of their structure. You cannot come to any conclusions about how they "should" look without knowing how they are made.
@nesokretep Sorry Cool Aid drinker, I work in high vacuum environments. And it every PSI is being applied to the innerside of the glove. there is nothing on this planet. If you have 14 pounds per SQUARE INCH, across the entire surface of that glove you would find it IMPOSSIBLE TO BEND a single finger. You can have layer upon layer and you will only making the PSI'S AGAINST YOU MORE RIGID!!! So just shows you have no clue about basic physics from your post.
If you actually worked in "high vacuum environments," you would NOT have thought that: "And it every PSI is being applied to the innerside of the glove. there is nothing on this planet." was an actual sentence (or set of sentences, or whatever you thought you were typing.
And your pofile says you are from the United States, so you'll have trouble claiming ignorance of the English language if you have any kind of education.
ya, so they knew NASA 69 would need changes.. learning curve. i agree with the walk is unique, but mythbuster didn't nail it either, especially with a plethora of the moon footage. much of the moon footage is downright insulting ...and so poor in quality its hard to pick much of anything out. Why did we pay these guys so much for such a POS camera? The stuff thats 'clear' is riddled with inconsistencies.
watch Kubrick's 2001, they are very convincing and were done over a period of a few years prior to the 1968 release.By 69 their would have been even more research and better effects.
I believe we went, i just think they are not entirely forth coming in the real footage.
@godnmyhands I have seen 2001, in fact I saw it a few weeks ago in blu-ray, the picture looked awesome.. the effects? not so much. more importantly it simply didn't look like the moon. billowing clouds of dust when they landed. the rocks and landscape looked all wrong. Don't get me started on the way they walked, nothing like the real thing.
What does look like real walking though? The mythbusters walking in REAL 1/6 G. It's amazing they matched the walk ON THE FIRST TRY.
were there no vacuums in labs at the time??? of course they researched to see what would need to be present to be believable. Any good writer does sufficient research to create realistic scenes and character knowledge, even when writing fiction.
If making a movie, cuts and edits are accumulated to create the very conditions that are convincing.Thus damp dust/sand/etc could be used for some takes... many takes.
One of the worst debunk efforts I have ever seen!!!
@godnmyhands So for some takes they use "damp dust or sand" and for others they don't? So maybe they use some damp dust for the photos and then they replace it with [mystery substance that doesn't clump when kicked around] for the video.
Well you gotta hand it to the fx artists for matching the scenes EXACTLY between the photos and video, every rock and crater in place. Not one single foot print from the crew is visibile.. in THOUSANDS of photos and hundreds of hours of video.
okay so NASA provided all the materials for the show. I am sure if they did fake it ...they would generously provided the same 'lunar regolith" ***simulant*** for a tv show that will prove them right against the hoax they stand accused. If it was faked, did they use this regolith, or any number of other available material that would create the desired effect on "the set"
wow,a footprint done for nasa in thier lab.Im impressed. What impresses me even more is the absence of lem frames,flags,footprints,lunar rovers and other equipment supposedly left on the moon.Wow,isnt it great that china's chang'e and japan is taking satellite hd scans of the moons surface and the apollo landing sites.lmao,and a video lunar rover.This is the undeniable truth.Houston,we have a problem. As for these ass kissing mythbusters,good luck on your ratings.lol
@kraftdinnersalad "What impresses me even more is the absence of lem frames,flags,footprints,lunar rovers and other equipment supposedly left on the moon."
Huh? All of that can be seen in the HUNDREDS of photos taken by LRO of the landing sites.. Basically what you are saying is you are impressed by your own hoaxtard fantasy, a fantasy supported by your own hoaxtard lies.
@kraftdinnersalad lack? dude the moon is littered with crap.. break out a telescope a little better than the $50 wall mart 50x zoom and you can see alot of it
@JoshFritz561 You are suggesting you can see the artifacts left on the moon by men with a telescope bought at walmart? Even the best telescopes on Earth and even the best off Earth such as Hubble can't see such small objects. It took putting a satellite in orbit around the moon (LRO) to finally reveal the landing sites in photos other than the ones taken on the moon.
@SirMildredPierce god your an idiot... no I said you can't see it with a walmart tele like you use.. and hubble can read the headline of a fucking newpaper sitting on a sidewalk in NY city if you give it the co-ordinates... so wtf are you talking about you can't see the base of the lunar lander among other things?
@JoshFritz561 How about before you start calling people idiots you do a little research on the subject. The Hubble has an aperture of 16cm so it would not be able to resolve anything smaller than than, much less a 1 or 2 inch headline at ANY distance. That is a simple fact. Even if it could see something of consequence a few thousand miles away, the moon is a quarter MILLION miles away. The fact is, it wouldn't be able to resolve anything smaller than 60 meters at that distance.
Hilarious... these people have obviously never been to Iraq. Cause the boot prints we left there were exactly the same...that's why we called it moon dust.
The corner cubes were undoubtedly placed there by a robotic device. The moon landings (all of them) were totally faked in a studio. Much cheaper and easier to do and safer as well.
@highendherps undoubtedly? Well, when you present such compelling evidence, how could we doubt it?
Oh wait, you didn't present any evidence...
And did robots place everything else? All the equipement?
Did robots also put the footprints on the moon?
All of this stuff can be seen in the LRO photos. You can't pretend LRO doesn't exist. There is plenty of room for doubt when it comes to the moon hoax fantasy. LRO is the final nail in the coffin that is the moon hoax conspiracy.
@SirMildredPierce With all due respect, since they faked all the earlier missions and photos, don't you think they'd fake more photos to try to proove it happened? lol. Photoshopping is very easy in this day and age.
The moon landings never happened. Only a mental midget would believe that obvious crap.
@highendherps No I don't think they would fake those photos. What exactly would they get out of it? Why would they go out of their way to keep faking something they aparently sufficiently faked 40 years ago. Photoshopping is easy but pulling off a believable photoshop is not? Who's doing the photoshopping? the 80 year old men who faked it the first time? Or a new batch of fakers? How do you hire someone to do that? I'd love to see the ad.
@SirMildredPierce I have studied the "lro photos" and they are all so fuzzy and blurry that it looks like a child could have photoshopped them and the supposed shapes and images could be anything. It's an ABSURD bit of "evidence" backing a moon landing, lol.
@highendherps The LRO photos are blurry only if you get down to a resolution that makes them so but it is a fact that they are the best photos we have of the moon surface other than the Apollo photos themselves. A child could photoshop them? You do realise (of course you do since you studied them) that each landing site has been photographed nearly a dozen times each, in different lighting conditions. EVERY SINGLE crater and piece of equipment is where it's supposed to be.
@highendherps I believe it. And it is more believable than a God. So are you calling Ghandi stupid? Or any other great men and women who happened to believe in a God? What about all the intelligent people who believe in the moon landing? just because they think something you don't, they are all "Mental Midget"'s? Wow, are coming off as rather ignorant.
There is a mistake on the procedure, the silicates are hygroscopic, the researcher doesn´t must to expose them before of placing the sample into the vacuum chamber. believe me; the Mythbusters are VERY lousy general science teachers.
@Leivinn20 "the researcher doesn´t must to expose them before of placing the sample into the vacuum chamber. believe me; the Mythbusters are VERY lousy general science teachers."
As lousy as your command of the English language?
@Leivinn20 "@SirMildredPierce: By the way, As lousy as your command of the English language? - it´s wrong, I guess you mean: Is your command on English language lousy as the command of Mythbusters is?."
Nice try, but no, that is just as lousy english as your previous attempt was. You gonna edit it a third time?
@SirMildredPierce: Nice try, but no, that is just as lousy English as your previous attempt was. You gonna edit it a third time?.
-Ok!, this is better. Your grammar is getting better. We are going to be really good anglophones. Congratulations. I am not sure if you received my massage
@SirMildredPierce: Ok, you won. My first language is Spanish; every now and then my mind deceives me. I live in a country Spanish-speaking. Keeping my mind thinking in English is a very hard. Sorry. I mean: There is a mistake in the procedure, the silicates are hygroscopic, and the researcher doesn´t must to expose them to air before of place them into the vacuum chamber. Believe me; the Mythbusters are terrible teachers of general science.
mythbusters can suck cock. how much money NASA gave these assholes? and i bet they can now get an good extension on their stupid show.
glower125 3 weeks ago
just wondering how would they explain the crosshairs that are behind some of the objects in some of the pictures supposedly taken during the moon landing.
bindoy 1 month ago
@bindoy It is caused by overexposure: the bright white areas of the emulsion "bleed" over the thin black crosshairs. The crosshairs are only about 0.004 inch thick (0.1 mm) and emulsion would only have to bleed about half that much to fully obscure it. There are many photos where the middle of the crosshair is "washed-out" but the rest is intact. In some photos of the flag, parts of one crosshair appear on the red stripes, but parts of the same crosshair are invisible on the white stripes.
SirMildred76 1 month ago
@bindoy
W W W clavius.org/photoret.html
wearefused 3 weeks ago
Lol sand isn't moon dust , problem solved
TEMPLE7D 1 month ago
Proof by mythbusters owned by the Discovery channel is like proof by computer animation of pancaking WTC floor trusses by NIST.
The biggest proof regarding the Apollo missions legitimacy is the crystal clear photographs made by a Hasselblad camera with no lead shield whatsoever. Hasselblad confirmed this. The Van Allen radiation belt would have clouded the crap out of the film.
peyotecactus 1 month ago
why did they not pull the boot print out again to prove it wasn't wet. This test was biased.
It was in NASAs base after all, as if they had nothing to loose ;)
maurikid23 2 months ago
@maurikid23 Okay, it wasn't that the test was biased per se. But yeah, I'll admit the test was shit. Mainly cause they are busting way too specific a myth, the only thing they are busting is that any fine moondust like material could hold the bootprint in a vacuum (without moisture). That's pretty easy to bust and they did no prob.
The biggest problem is they had wholey different lighting conditions in the vacuum chamber as they did on the moon, so the results look completely different.
SirMildred76 1 month ago
It's Buzz's print from after he stepped off the lander you ignorant fool.
RasmusRosengaard 2 months ago
Now tell me the print they made in the lab looks anything like what was pictured on the supposed moon .
And tell me that in 1969 with all those fine cars the Americans made if you think they could go to the moon before the Russians and why look for rocks we already knew they were there, fuck people still believe the Pope is holy and Jews are special to a god figure ...come on get real stupid!
FrankaDith 2 months ago
@FrankaDith > Now tell me the print they made in the lab looks anything like what was pictured on the supposed moon .
Yup, the prints taken from the TEN THOUSAND PICTURES they took do look remarkably like the moon, considering they were taken there.
> why look for rocks we already knew they were there.
but we did not know what they were made of. Now that we have been able to study them indepth it has totally changed the theory of what created the moon. The moon rocks aren't merely props.
SirMildred76 2 months ago
@SirMildred76 So what did we learn about the origin of the moon,30 years ago we speculated that an asteroid hit the earth and tore off a chunk ,what do we know for sure now? and no those prints don't look anything alike besides he jump off the lander with both feet where is the other print Mildred?
FrankaDith 2 months ago
@FrankaDith it's hard to elaborate in such a small space, but to summarise: the three theories being tossed around before Apollo (The Capture Theory (as you mentioned), the Fission Theory, and the condensation Theory) We brought back over 1/4 tonne of rocks (not 'a few') that have been examined by over hundreds of scientists from dozens of labs and the general consensus is refered to as the Giant Impact Theory. Science is awesome like that, preachers don't throw out whole theories wholesale.
SirMildred76 2 months ago
@FrankaDith In an email you mentioned "we can tell anything from the mass and constitution of any planet and start we can see with any telescope" & this is very very true! We can tell a lot from the wavelengths of light that we pick up when we look at stuff like the Moon. And what is really really cool is that we can match ALL the rocks we got from the moon to not just the Moon itself, but each of the individual landing sites! I hope that would give you some pause, you seem open minded enuf.
SirMildred76 2 months ago
@SirMildred76 I was a young man when Grand-Father mentioned he didn't believe and i had a critical eye on the world since then ,although science moves on like this was a fact and we move on ,i will remain a sceptic until it feels real with my inner self ,i wont go into it but i know this wouldn't be the first lie coming out of Washington.
Nice talking to you ,and i invite you to share the video ive sent you : )
FrankaDith 2 months ago
@FrankaDith If you want to know what the results of real conspiracies and lies coming out of Washington look at Watergate, look at Colin Powell lying to the UN about WMD's in Iraq. These were incompetent lies that were quickly exposed. Powell didn't fake 10,000 photos and hundreds of hours of video. The few photos they had were vague, grainy, and small. And the 10,000 photos that were the result of the moon missions were secondary to the primary mission of science, which can't be discredited.
SirMildred76 2 months ago
@SirMildred76 Have to admit your cool disposition and none agressive style is more disarming and rings more true than the attacks I've had the last few days ,ill rethink my stance ,but don't know the outcome ,in any case i have nothing to win or lose true or false, thanks for the conversation.
FrankaDith 2 months ago
@FrankaDith I take my hat off to you. That's what it's all about critical thinking.
wearefused 3 weeks ago
I've seen moon rock. Its not a hoax. God damn you fuckin conspiracy retards are stupid.
m16iscold 2 months ago
Im chuckling reading all the comments from the Moon Hoax CTers. I imagine in 100 years we will have the tech affordable so that the rich can fly to the moon and eventually people like those CTers can. Chances are they will say that proves nothing.....NASA used invisible HAARP mindrays to make me hallucinate seeing the original moon landing site......enjoy living in fantasyland
EarlFaulk 2 months ago
Proves nothing! You cannot re-create exact conditions on the moon here; even NASA couldn't anticipate everything; so how do you expect us to think you can? This is pure B.S. The Russian government would have beat you to proving a fake; and they have better resources than you. You debunked absolutely nothing!
zenjim007 2 months ago
This experiment debunks nothing, the powder should have been tested for zero moisture content and also it should have been tipped out onto the tray with zero moisture in the environment around it so it couldn't be contaminated...try again!!!
TheSharondebs 3 months ago
@TheSharondebs So in other words, no matter how clearly you are proven wrong, you will just refuse to accept simple facts. Got it.
Mozart1220 2 months ago
@Mozart1220 You presume to know my stance on the Moon landings but I make no mention of this. My comment was about the way the experiment was conducted. If you're going to claim to 'debunk' something at least do it with an experiment that has had as many variables controlled as possible. You must have questioned that when you watched the video??
TheSharondebs 2 months ago
@TheSharondebs No, I really am not that anal.
Mozart1220 2 months ago
Funny, testing if Nasa hoaxed the moon with equipment provided by NASA.
YbborNetsrek 3 months ago
@YbborNetsrek Right, yeah, NASA -- the tyrannical super-organization out to convince the world via ingenious fraudulent machinery that their existence is not only justified but meaningful as well. Yeah. Sure. Yeah.
theycallmefibb 3 months ago
@monokhem This is not about science i do believe in science i not believe in NASA, sorry. Other thing all tecnology NASA know about rockets was stolen from the German Nazis, Wherner Von Braun was german he did a lot of rockets to Germans you can see in a lot of films in you tube. You probably proud about NASA, but i not believe in NASA, they fake things is true! They know exist UFO and have technology hinded, we have proof of that to much proof, maybe one day you awake and see the truth.
rogodoy12 3 months ago
@monokhem Go to the FBI site and look for UFO files. Conspiracy theorists won this battle against the lies american government impose to the american people. See in the cae of the Mythbusters they laughed and discredit conspiracy theorists because is a plan to make you believe this is true. If you can see in the film they use the sand very like moon sand. I know the man landing on the moon but was not that time. Maybe today is possible to landng in the moon.
rogodoy12 3 months ago
@rogodoy12 Just because it's a UFO doesn't mean it's aliens. All it means it is a flying object that has not been identified. That's what the acronym means. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to realize why the US government would be interested in this, as the idea of foreign powers potentially flying aircraft over US airspace is something to be taken seriously and investigated.
loperspest 3 months ago
press 9 for "look at that!"
riaz416 3 months ago
what she said at the very end is wrong she said that if the moons gravity is less than the earths it would be easier... but since everything is lighter on the moon it wouldnt have made a print as sharp it would have been very dull and not as deep
treyhebert118 3 months ago
Mythbuters show how NASA did the fakes see how is possible do it!
rogodoy12 4 months ago
@rogodoy12 They didn't. The method they used was a vacume chamber and there is no way we ever had a vacume chamber that big. It's the biggest hole in the moon hoax theory. Things in the videos clearly had to happen in a vacume, and the area they were working in was to big for a vacume chamber.
monokhem 4 months ago
@monokhem Sorry, I dont want to stay here discussing this, but NASA has A bigger water tank for all this fakes, they have a small picture from the footprint. The same footpring is possible do with water. The mythbusters did that you see. Iike the mytth buster because they are dumb they showed is possible do the fakes ont the earth. I believe the man moonlanding there are too mistakes everywhere. Think, why they did that?
rogodoy12 4 months ago
@rogodoy12 A water tank does not produce a vacume, and in no way could be used to produce any of what you are calling fake. You can't make dust one earth behave like lunar dust. Look at the perfect trackable arcs the dust makes when the Astronaughts kick them into the air. That proves the vacume. The framing proves that there was at least a 5 square mile vacume on Appolo 16. There is no way we could have ever had a vacume chamber that big. Your theory has been disproven.
monokhem 4 months ago
@monokhem Yes, it is possible do the same on water tanks, you probably never see one, in the pictures, movies? Dust behave like in the same way in the water tank. You know this i dont want to teach you. NASA has various tanks. Is possible do this kind of film with 48 frames camera too. Vacuum isnot diferent in from earth atmosphere the diference you do not know is there absence of ai wind, but it work the same way in our earth as in the moon. The absence of air and wind makes a vacuum.
rogodoy12 4 months ago
@monokhem this way no 5 square mile for vacuum needed because absence of air and wind is possible to eliminate and do it on earth, I do for you the same footage they did in my home is easy. You can fake every single bit of NASA footage on earth. Never we can prove this is fake because they very well. Nasa is good faking things.
rogodoy12 4 months ago
@rogodoy12 There is no 5 square mile area in your home. There was no faking. If it was fakeed like you said, it would be easy to prove. You would only have to look at the atmosphere interacting with the dust, which would have been impossible for them to fake or duplicate on earth.
monokhem 3 months ago
@monokhem I try to explain to you again: in a vacuum there are absence of air and consequently no wind. the gravity acts like a bit on earth because the moon gravity is lower, but it has gravity! Gravity behaves equal in the moon and in the earth the difference it is lower, it makes possible the escape velocity easy all the particle in the surface will behave like inside a water tank or using a 48 fps camera. This fakes the the particles junping when the astronauts walk.
rogodoy12 3 months ago
@monokhem No need a 5 square mile area to do this is possible do in normal atmosfere on earth as the Mythbuster did on the experiment. If you see there is a photo and not a hole image with background on the footprint of the astronaut. I tell you i do if you want to prove i am right, i do for you the footprints equal in the photo , i do the particles moving very like in the astronaut films. Is all fakes. I ever need to do because Mythbusters did all ready.
rogodoy12 3 months ago
@rogodoy12 A 5 squre envirnment is what they did it in. the video clearly shows that. If you are not going to work un your understanding of history and physics you could at least brush up on the english language. Seriously half of what you say makes no sense.
monokhem 3 months ago
@monokhem I need to write in another language because english is not the language you probably understand. You are in a country people like believe in everything. If they say is true you believe it is not about science or physics is about cover up. FBI and NASA do this do you remember Roswell caseconspiracy theorists was right about the FBI cover up, because if you donot know they are fully documented in they site. I think you certify about your beliefs first, this is not about my knowledege.
rogodoy12 3 months ago
@rogodoy12 Don't get me worng, I totaly respect that you are bilingual, but what I'm telling you is that large portions of your posts don't make any sense.
Your generalizations about me and my countrymen are way off base. Just because I don't believe in your pet conspiracy theory does not mean I fall for everything I'm told. The Moon landings have been proven to have happened. You have fallen for a trick.
The truth about Roswell is I don't know and niether do you.
monokhem 3 months ago
@rogodoy12 There is no image in fucking earth man cannot do it. I do, i know to do special effects, like you see in films very perfectly. Real fake is easy to do you never know what is real than wath is not. Stanley Kubrik was very competent filmaker if was him to do this film, that is the man. He liked to do a film that make you believe it is true. He liked this if he died with this secret, he died happy because he was a genius. Iknow a lot of people that do this effects very easy.
rogodoy12 3 months ago
@rogodoy12 there are a lot of people and filmakers that do this film for NASA fakers, Walt disney studios do this because they are slickers from USA democracy they possible did to and others filmakers will do for the NASA, fakes is easy to do! Mythbusters are Illuminatis they love tecnocracy they love USA. I believe that moonlanding was real, because i want to believe. Since FBI proved conspiracy theorists right in the Roswell case, FBI fully documented in it site. Who will believe in NASA?
rogodoy12 3 months ago
No, it is not like the footprint of the astronaut is fake! Just you believe. Now what about the photografic film? It is not possible todo pictures like that with a simple photografic camera. The film is not protected.
rogodoy12 4 months ago
THIS IS A ZIO STRAW MAN CON JOB. HERE IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW. THERE IS NO MOISTURE IN THE SURFACE AT 280 DEGREES IN DAYTIME. GIVE ME A BREAK. THE BOOTS I SAW, SUPPOSED TO BE THE REAL ONES. WOULDN'T HAVE HELD UP HALF THAT HOT. I'M SERIOUS. THIS IS A REAL SHAM BY LOWLIFES. LOOK WHAT ELSE THE SAME PEOPLE HAVE DONE.
sssssjjjj1 4 months ago
not busted - not the same, see 3:31. Funded TV.
CTR831 4 months ago
IT'S ALL A CONSPIRACY!!
person: Idiot.
No, not the moon landing, the conspiracy theorists!
person: ??
Ok, because there far more evidence for the moon landing than against it, the conspiracy theorists KNOW we landed on the moon, but try to disprove it so that they can demoralize the scientific community! Why? THEY ARE AFRAID OF PROGRESS! There, case closed.
Conspiracy theorist: LIES!!!
I have just as much evidence for my theory as you have for faking the moon landing.
Conspiracy theorist: ......
vidgami46 4 months ago
looks nothing like the footprint left by Neil.
UNDERDOGTAHOE 5 months ago
Comment removed
iceisisis 5 months ago
In addition, if you quit reading rag tabloids and actually do some honest research, you might just discover how the orbital path was designed to bypass the Van Allen belt. You might also discover how solar activity was a great concern to all. One day, we will return and visit the landing sites with the flags and lunar rover and foot prints. Of course, people like you will say that all the it was planted there.
ccryder1149 5 months ago
Actually, after the successful moon landing, the USSR declared that they were no longer interested in a lunar landing. They did not bother to explain why. As far as RDF tracking, the precise direction of the radio signals from the lunar module were tracked by many nations; not just USA Allies. The signals originated from the moon and the spacecraft orbiting the moon. I was getting my post secondary education when all this happened. What were you doing?
ccryder1149 5 months ago
Get past the Van Allen Belt you bandwagon, sheep, America is better than everyone, we're right you're wrong, morons!
stephen2152002 5 months ago
There 3 factors that prove the success of the Apollo program. First, every physical claim of "proof" that no one landed on the moon has been proven wrong. Second, no one has come forward with any credible evidence as to where the lunar landing "hoax" was created and who created it. Finally, the Russians know the landing was real because they tracked it by their own RDF (radio direction finder). It was a monumental failure on their part to be the first. They would be the first to scream fake!
ccryder1149 5 months ago
@ccryder1149 They do scream fake! We can't predict solar flares now, let alone 43 years ago! The van allen belt is all the proof you need. Every country screams and knows we didn't go to the moon, it's old news, but if you ask someone in, Russia, or anywhere, they will say, duh it's fake...FAKE...FAKE!!!
stephen2152002 5 months ago
@stephen2152002 No they don't. Only fools like you that happen to live in other countries do that. Don't liable the rest of the world. The vast majority are thoroughly convinced we went to the moon. Your arguement is fake.
monokhem 4 months ago
the space suits are still secrets. Clinton wanted to give then to the Chinese as a show of friendship, he only got his pals to give saturn 5 plans. They are made to work in a vacuum and the sunny side is like 250F and minus 250f on the shady side. So obviously the pressure bladder is not the fabric part thats the protective cover.
greg08817 6 months ago
that is bull .if there was vacuum those arm protectors would be inflated because of the different pleasure
wkrabs123 6 months ago
good video.
another thing that goes against any hoax theory is that the regolith is a very fine powdery dust unlike the sand used in the experiment. the regolith particles are of the order of μm so being in direct sight of bombardment by the solar radiation, they tend to pick up electric charge which would stay for a long time until another opposite or neutrally charged body touches those particles. in the apollo, the astronaut shoe did just that, binding the particles.
zambi007i 6 months ago
maybe this guys will explain why footprint is so good and there is no print from landed spaceship lol
Scoutrussp7 7 months ago
@Scoutrussp7 How can you see the "print" from the spaceship if it is landed, the prints would be underneath the "feet" of the lunar module.
SirMildred76 7 months ago
Why can't we find a flag? Isn't there anymore?
joaoflaviojr 7 months ago
What's this? You got this stuff from NASA? It could be the same stuff they used to make the phony footprints. Besides, was the temperature 250 degrees?
bammbamm12 7 months ago
@bammbamm12 Okay, lets not lose sight that they are only busting one claim. And the claim by the hoaxtards is that *no* material would be able to hold such a crisp image in a vacuum because water would be needed to hold the material together. In a vacuum all water would be boiled away and would not exist in the material.
The only real quality in regalith that allows this to happen is the shape of the particles, they are sharp and irregular, they have not been eroded smooth like on earth.
SirMildred76 7 months ago
@SirMildred76 - I was skeptical, but then convinced by Astronaut Gene Cernan's interview. But still, if you're accusing NASA of synthesizing everything, you can't prove the accuser wrong when you use the sand they synthesized to demonstrate the fallacy. In other words, you must first believe that there's no difference between the stuff they used in the experiment, and actual moon dust. That now has to be proven.
bammbamm12 7 months ago
@bammbamm12 "In other words, you must first believe that there's no difference between the stuff they used in the experiment, and actual moon dust. That now has to be proven."
If the myth is that the only way such a crisp image could be held together is in a material saturated with water, and then you take out all the water, it doesn't matter what material you use, the specific myth is busted.
There will always be some other explanation, and thus another "myth" to bust.
SirMildred76 7 months ago
@SirMildred76 - Dat's twoo.
bammbamm12 7 months ago
Y did they change the control? U cant go from sand 2 shit that NASA made...
MrJbblood 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrJbblood "Y did they change the control? U cant go from sand 2 shit that NASA made..."
Because the moon isn't made of sand (no matter what Jarrah White would wish). That NASA made the artificial regalith is meaningless. Is it some conspiracy that they would use extra realistic regalith or something? I mean, what's the problem with the artificial regalith?
SirMildred76 7 months ago
... if you watch the video you can see the motion as illustrated in this video but then in the original video this happens, then after about 30 seconds the flag is completely stationary for about 1 minute or so and then starts waving again... hmm
actinfitness 7 months ago
Good effort, but getting your props and equipment from NASA doesn't help with credibility.
rpgtutubo 7 months ago
Wouldn't it prove that NASA did ( LOL ) go to the Moon if they COULDN'T do it ?
You can't busted a myth/fact about the Moon on Earth it proves NASA could fake it too !?
Fact is NASA say's they may go to the Moon in 20 years time .... Why they did it FORTY YEARS AGO ! For a start my phones go more computing power than any of NASA computers at that time, CGI is so good they could fake anything they want today !!!
AndyARDK 8 months ago
@AndyARDK no you stupid fuck NASA said they want to go to MARS in 15-20 years and then back to the moon so they can make a colony on it.
ahnilator123 7 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No matter how much NASA pours suger on their shit, they can never sell it to smart people as pudding, except to those gullible conservative republican Christian bullshit-believing retards because these cowards can't handle the truth. Why can't NASA just admit to the hoaxes? It's not like we have the power to get a refund on hundreds of billions of tax payer's hard earned money.
911LIESdotORG 9 months ago
thats not a good way to disprove a theory, using a powder manufactured by the very agency that is accused of lying about the moon landing by conspiracist. the fact is, that powder ISNT actual moon dust . just saying. Mythbusters failed again.
Fpockets 9 months ago
@Fpockets Oh yes, because a T.V show could get dirt from the moon, seeing as going to the moon is difficult enough. Really, they didn't fail they did everything they could for people who don't the the technology to actually go to the moon, and seeing as there are people out there who don't believe anything they shouldn't watch this anyway because they wont ever agree.
RandomnessISJoy 8 months ago
@RandomnessISJoy if you are going to disprove something, you have to do it right. Mythbusters failed again.
Fpockets 8 months ago
this programme is so embarrasingly awful
paulsreay1 9 months ago
sounds like they already had their mind made up..
way2easy2love 9 months ago
@way2easy2love Duh, they're intelligent people so they've more than likely known the moon landing was real for most of their lives.
hlyleh 7 months ago
On the bad astronomy site it is stated: "Ironically, the dust around the landing site was probably a bit thicker than before, since the dust blown out would have piled up there." This is given as a reason for the clear footprints close to the Lander. So why is there no dust on the Lander feet?
123coining123 9 months ago
all you ppl wastin ur time, jus get a fcukin telescope an see if the flag is there.. an pls let me kno the results. thanx :D
BlueNem0 9 months ago 8
@BlueNem0 Like I said on the other video:
Google "LRO"
The telescope was built.
It imaged the landing sites.
Everything was there.
Case closed.
SirMildred76 9 months ago 14
@SirMildred76 Can you share those pictures?
joaoflaviojr 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SirMildred76 Can you share those pictures?
joaoflaviojr 7 months ago
@SirMildred76 Can you share it?
joaoflaviojr 7 months ago
@SirMildred76 "Google LRO" I have. "The telescope was built" Currently there is no! telescope on this planet built to show much about the moon. "It imaged the landing sites. Everything was there" Really? All I see are pictures that resemble a pile of dog shit in a snow storm. Do better than that next time. Btw, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm nothing more than an intrigued party about space.
TheXxneowolfxX 6 months ago
@SirMildred76 everything was there? All i saw was dark pixels.... You cant expect people to believe in the moonlanding when the LRO pictures are a disgrace where nothing can be discerned.
Bilderbergz 5 months ago
@BlueNem0 Please point me to a telescope that can see a 3 foot long flag that's 230,000 miles away. Oh right, none exist. (probably the reason we send astronauts and satellites up to get images)
TheXxneowolfxX 6 months ago
@TheXxneowolfxX And you don't understand why such a telescope can't be built on Earth?
SirMildred76 6 months ago
@SirMildred76 Uh what?
TheXxneowolfxX 6 months ago
@TheXxneowolfxX my bad, replied to the wrong person.
SirMildred76 6 months ago
The edges were not as clean and sharp on the mythbuster footprint as they are in the alleged moon photo. Look at the closeup. They failed.
john17972 10 months ago
@john17972 That's because they are in completely different lighting contiditions. Strange enough they couldn't replicate the lighting conditions in the tiny vacuum chamber what with the original being lit by the SUN and nothing else.
SirMildred76 10 months ago
Kari is sexy in those moon boots. XD
Laurelindo 10 months ago
what about the support wires seen in other vids?... and think about the fact that mythbusters didn't get the exact same moon dust but replica dust...tampered dust in other words "very similar " the show says...lol fixed
Toaks21 10 months ago
@Toaks21 There's no support wires seen in any videos taken on the moon. You can occasionally see the antennea on the backpack (which is only like 1 foot long at the most).
SirMildred76 10 months ago
@SirMildred76 yeah... ok.. for now... but what about that "very similar" dust ?
Toaks21 10 months ago
@Toaks21 There have never been any 'support wires' that I've seen which weren't merely film glare or the astronauts' antennas, and if the material they were using is tampered dust... WHAT DO YOU EXPECT?! The Mythbusters are not going to get ACTUAL lunar regolith in order to shove a boot into it! Go to the moon and look at the prints yourself, if you so wish. Otherwise, this is as good as it gets.
JPLyokoWarrior 9 months ago
@JPLyokoWarrior hence it is as if we are supposed to believe it or question it. and openly accept take educational comments like ur self...right ?im just saying
Toaks21 8 months ago
im not saying its fake at all but what if it was and this is how NASA did it they would be like wtf how did they know
Invincible0426 10 months ago
Hoaxers are so pathetic. Go up there, and I bet you'll find footprints ;)
Ebbeboy 10 months ago
hey NASA i can fake the foot print for you but it will cost you some money, you hired the wrong people.
datzfast 10 months ago
the only thing they did scientifically is prove they can't make a foot print like in the photo oh wait a minute i misspoke, they did it in wet sand. yea!!!!!!!!!!!!! like they said in this video. you guys suck donky dick.
datzfast 10 months ago
they think were all stupid because anybody can see from those flaccid gloves they are at one earth atmosphere. no vacuum at all 03:08 also that imprint looked to be only at best one eighth of an inch deep, not deep enough to collapse on itself. this is not science here. this is designed to deceive. mythbusters you guys suck donkey dick.
datzfast 10 months ago
No no no, guys,we didnt fake the moon landing so we could say that we beat the russians. we actually did go there but the moon landing was recreated in a studio so people wouldnt see the alien civilisations, UFO's and Tupac up there.
amor987654321 11 months ago
The sand was sent from NASA who obviously would want to keep the landing secret if it was faked. So they would obviously send some special sand that resembles wet sand and not Lunar sand. Think about it; NASA would want to keep the moon landing quiet if it was faked. Why would America fake this? Because Russia were becoming far more advanced and sent the first dog to space, so America was competing to be the Biggest Power and faked the first man on the moon. Just a theory, i'm no expert.
georgie94caulwell 1 year ago
Right at the end Tori says "Now Nasa will let us out of here ...."
Do a search for Mythbusters RFID ....and you'll see :
Mythbusters is controlled by the man ....
KillerGuitar70 1 year ago
HEY EVERYBODY!! You really need to concentrate on the absolutely conclusive evidence that the glove in the chamber has ZERO vacuum against it. You CANNOT manually bend a finger against even if it was at 10 PSI. Nothing on this planet can change this. You have to have the same structure as a real astronaut glove to do this.NEVER A simple layered glove!!! The chamber is a vacuum chamber yes, but the door and glove on it is for a contamination chamber . They swapped doors!!
kevin067 1 year ago
That's not a vacuum either. The gloves are wrinkled and he makes a thumbs up. Anyway, that's not a good enough footprint to compare to Aldrin. Mythbusters are fucking retarded
yesiamawizardjonny 1 year ago
@yesiamawizardjonny you are fucking retarded mythbusters rock!
halojames1 1 year ago
@bassman1993 There's water on the moon. NASA found out that it was there in 2009.
yesiamawizardjonny 1 year ago
This is a very bad test of a lunar footprint. Watch the video by Jarrah White.
yesiamawizardjonny 1 year ago
@DiSoNeNcBoI Yeah, I understand that, but what does that have to do with the claim they are testing? Additionally they made many different kinds of movements while on the moon. Some small and subtle, others quick. you can see many times in the videos of them moving around them kicking up the regolith (which falls back down in perfect vacuumless arcs). You can also see them moving around without kicking it up.
Basically, what I'm asking is, what is your point?
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
@DiSoNeNcBoI What would that have to do wether or not regolith in a vacuum can hold such a distinct image as seen in the photos of the famous footprint photo taken on the moon? They are testing a very specific claim and what you are suggesting has nothing to do with wether that claim is true or not.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
THERE IS NO VACUUM IN THAT CHAMBER!!! If there was,the gloves would appear to be inflated and wrinkle free. It is also near impossible to create the vacuum of space in a chamber and then be able to stick your hands insid Notice the thickness of that chamber and glass? You think you can just have some flimsy gloves to withstand space vacuum but then need 1-2 inches of glass/metal on everything else? Not only is this test invalid but you are seeing conclusive evidence that they trying to deceive.
kevin067 1 year ago
@kevin067 -- Yes, that is a standard experimental vacuum chamber.
And yes, those are the gloves that are normally used in the vacuum.
And yes, that is what they look like when they are used in the vacuum.
The fact that you can't see all the layers of their structure merely means that you can't see all the layers of their structure. You cannot come to any conclusions about how they "should" look without knowing how they are made.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep Sorry Cool Aid drinker, I work in high vacuum environments. And it every PSI is being applied to the innerside of the glove. there is nothing on this planet. If you have 14 pounds per SQUARE INCH, across the entire surface of that glove you would find it IMPOSSIBLE TO BEND a single finger. You can have layer upon layer and you will only making the PSI'S AGAINST YOU MORE RIGID!!! So just shows you have no clue about basic physics from your post.
kevin067 1 year ago
@kevin067 -- Sorry.
If you actually worked in "high vacuum environments," you would NOT have thought that: "And it every PSI is being applied to the innerside of the glove. there is nothing on this planet." was an actual sentence (or set of sentences, or whatever you thought you were typing.
And your pofile says you are from the United States, so you'll have trouble claiming ignorance of the English language if you have any kind of education.
Nice try, though.
Feel free to try again.
nesokretep 1 year ago
ya, so they knew NASA 69 would need changes.. learning curve. i agree with the walk is unique, but mythbuster didn't nail it either, especially with a plethora of the moon footage. much of the moon footage is downright insulting ...and so poor in quality its hard to pick much of anything out. Why did we pay these guys so much for such a POS camera? The stuff thats 'clear' is riddled with inconsistencies.
godnmyhands 1 year ago
watch Kubrick's 2001, they are very convincing and were done over a period of a few years prior to the 1968 release.By 69 their would have been even more research and better effects.
I believe we went, i just think they are not entirely forth coming in the real footage.
godnmyhands 1 year ago
@godnmyhands I have seen 2001, in fact I saw it a few weeks ago in blu-ray, the picture looked awesome.. the effects? not so much. more importantly it simply didn't look like the moon. billowing clouds of dust when they landed. the rocks and landscape looked all wrong. Don't get me started on the way they walked, nothing like the real thing.
What does look like real walking though? The mythbusters walking in REAL 1/6 G. It's amazing they matched the walk ON THE FIRST TRY.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
were there no vacuums in labs at the time??? of course they researched to see what would need to be present to be believable. Any good writer does sufficient research to create realistic scenes and character knowledge, even when writing fiction.
godnmyhands 1 year ago
If making a movie, cuts and edits are accumulated to create the very conditions that are convincing.Thus damp dust/sand/etc could be used for some takes... many takes.
One of the worst debunk efforts I have ever seen!!!
godnmyhands 1 year ago
@godnmyhands So for some takes they use "damp dust or sand" and for others they don't? So maybe they use some damp dust for the photos and then they replace it with [mystery substance that doesn't clump when kicked around] for the video.
Well you gotta hand it to the fx artists for matching the scenes EXACTLY between the photos and video, every rock and crater in place. Not one single foot print from the crew is visibile.. in THOUSANDS of photos and hundreds of hours of video.
Bravo, NASA.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
okay so NASA provided all the materials for the show. I am sure if they did fake it ...they would generously provided the same 'lunar regolith" ***simulant*** for a tv show that will prove them right against the hoax they stand accused. If it was faked, did they use this regolith, or any number of other available material that would create the desired effect on "the set"
godnmyhands 1 year ago
@datzfast
No, you can get glass vacuum jars, and they don't have thick Walls, do they break?
No
zezema535 1 year ago
@bassman1993
Um, no they have found ice caverns underground on the moon, so there was water there at some point
zezema535 1 year ago
if the gravity is less on the moon, the sand isn't as well compressed, making it easier to leave a foot print
JoshFritz561 1 year ago
Umm... They found out that there actually IS water on the moon...
FullDeck13 1 year ago
wow,a footprint done for nasa in thier lab.Im impressed. What impresses me even more is the absence of lem frames,flags,footprints,lunar rovers and other equipment supposedly left on the moon.Wow,isnt it great that china's chang'e and japan is taking satellite hd scans of the moons surface and the apollo landing sites.lmao,and a video lunar rover.This is the undeniable truth.Houston,we have a problem. As for these ass kissing mythbusters,good luck on your ratings.lol
kraftdinnersalad 1 year ago
@kraftdinnersalad "What impresses me even more is the absence of lem frames,flags,footprints,lunar rovers and other equipment supposedly left on the moon."
Huh? All of that can be seen in the HUNDREDS of photos taken by LRO of the landing sites.. Basically what you are saying is you are impressed by your own hoaxtard fantasy, a fantasy supported by your own hoaxtard lies.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
@kraftdinnersalad lack? dude the moon is littered with crap.. break out a telescope a little better than the $50 wall mart 50x zoom and you can see alot of it
JoshFritz561 1 year ago
@JoshFritz561 You are suggesting you can see the artifacts left on the moon by men with a telescope bought at walmart? Even the best telescopes on Earth and even the best off Earth such as Hubble can't see such small objects. It took putting a satellite in orbit around the moon (LRO) to finally reveal the landing sites in photos other than the ones taken on the moon.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
@SirMildredPierce god your an idiot... no I said you can't see it with a walmart tele like you use.. and hubble can read the headline of a fucking newpaper sitting on a sidewalk in NY city if you give it the co-ordinates... so wtf are you talking about you can't see the base of the lunar lander among other things?
JoshFritz561 1 year ago
@JoshFritz561 How about before you start calling people idiots you do a little research on the subject. The Hubble has an aperture of 16cm so it would not be able to resolve anything smaller than than, much less a 1 or 2 inch headline at ANY distance. That is a simple fact. Even if it could see something of consequence a few thousand miles away, the moon is a quarter MILLION miles away. The fact is, it wouldn't be able to resolve anything smaller than 60 meters at that distance.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
in your face conspiracy theorist!!hhaahahaha
XTopSniperX 1 year ago
Sponsored by NASA
the3dom 1 year ago
@the3dom
If you use one conspiracy as proof of another conspiracy, that just proves how dumb your evidence is for either one.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
i need to stop commenting on these entertainers i might give them credence
datzfast 1 year ago
test
datzfast 1 year ago
Hilarious... these people have obviously never been to Iraq. Cause the boot prints we left there were exactly the same...that's why we called it moon dust.
frogpie1254 1 year ago
9 out of ten say the wet one looks like the moon prints. LOL complete fail
datzfast 1 year ago
@datzfast There was not enough moon sand simulate to get it as deep as the actual moons surface would be. logic
iwantmorecookies 1 year ago
The corner cubes were undoubtedly placed there by a robotic device. The moon landings (all of them) were totally faked in a studio. Much cheaper and easier to do and safer as well.
highendherps 1 year ago
@highendherps undoubtedly? Well, when you present such compelling evidence, how could we doubt it?
Oh wait, you didn't present any evidence...
And did robots place everything else? All the equipement?
Did robots also put the footprints on the moon?
All of this stuff can be seen in the LRO photos. You can't pretend LRO doesn't exist. There is plenty of room for doubt when it comes to the moon hoax fantasy. LRO is the final nail in the coffin that is the moon hoax conspiracy.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
@SirMildredPierce With all due respect, since they faked all the earlier missions and photos, don't you think they'd fake more photos to try to proove it happened? lol. Photoshopping is very easy in this day and age.
The moon landings never happened. Only a mental midget would believe that obvious crap.
highendherps 1 year ago
@highendherps No I don't think they would fake those photos. What exactly would they get out of it? Why would they go out of their way to keep faking something they aparently sufficiently faked 40 years ago. Photoshopping is easy but pulling off a believable photoshop is not? Who's doing the photoshopping? the 80 year old men who faked it the first time? Or a new batch of fakers? How do you hire someone to do that? I'd love to see the ad.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
@SirMildredPierce I have studied the "lro photos" and they are all so fuzzy and blurry that it looks like a child could have photoshopped them and the supposed shapes and images could be anything. It's an ABSURD bit of "evidence" backing a moon landing, lol.
highendherps 1 year ago
@highendherps The LRO photos are blurry only if you get down to a resolution that makes them so but it is a fact that they are the best photos we have of the moon surface other than the Apollo photos themselves. A child could photoshop them? You do realise (of course you do since you studied them) that each landing site has been photographed nearly a dozen times each, in different lighting conditions. EVERY SINGLE crater and piece of equipment is where it's supposed to be.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
@highendherps I believe it. And it is more believable than a God. So are you calling Ghandi stupid? Or any other great men and women who happened to believe in a God? What about all the intelligent people who believe in the moon landing? just because they think something you don't, they are all "Mental Midget"'s? Wow, are coming off as rather ignorant.
iwantmorecookies 1 year ago
@SirMildredPierce yet it didnt change anyones mind could it be the photos had made in NASA wrote all over them.
datzfast 1 year ago
There is a mistake on the procedure, the silicates are hygroscopic, the researcher doesn´t must to expose them before of placing the sample into the vacuum chamber. believe me; the Mythbusters are VERY lousy general science teachers.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 "the researcher doesn´t must to expose them before of placing the sample into the vacuum chamber. believe me; the Mythbusters are VERY lousy general science teachers."
As lousy as your command of the English language?
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
@SirMildredPierce :Dont´ worry about.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 "@SirMildredPierce: By the way, As lousy as your command of the English language? - it´s wrong, I guess you mean: Is your command on English language lousy as the command of Mythbusters is?."
Nice try, but no, that is just as lousy english as your previous attempt was. You gonna edit it a third time?
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
@SirMildredPierce: I extended the phrases to make them more expressive or explicit
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 : for instance: I live in a spanish-speaking country.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SirMildredPierce: Nice try, but no, that is just as lousy English as your previous attempt was. You gonna edit it a third time?.
- Ok!, this is better. Your grammar is getting better. We are going to be really good anglophones. Congratulations.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SirMildredPierce: Nice try, but no, that is just as lousy English as your previous attempt was. You gonna edit it a third time?.
-Ok!, this is better. Your grammar is getting better. We are going to be really good anglophones. Congratulations. I am not sure if you received my massage
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@SirMildredPierce: Ok, you won. My first language is Spanish; every now and then my mind deceives me. I live in a country Spanish-speaking. Keeping my mind thinking in English is a very hard. Sorry. I mean: There is a mistake in the procedure, the silicates are hygroscopic, and the researcher doesn´t must to expose them to air before of place them into the vacuum chamber. Believe me; the Mythbusters are terrible teachers of general science.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
Comment removed
Leivinn20 1 year ago