They found cartracks on picture's they made from the moon, america didnt land at all on the moon at that time, how could they land on the moon with almost a wooden + aliminium ship and go and come back without having any problems, while we are still struggling to go and come back and our technicus are more advanced then they ??? tell me if im true or false..
U know the Apollo ship was from aliminium, and the place where they filmed it was in the sahara desert, they picture u see when it assume's to go into the air is all filmed in a studio.. they did shoot a satalite there.
As u see they are standing on the moon, if u watch someone's shadow and the shadow of the flagpole, it's diffrent begave u put diffrent lights in diffrent positions.
I believe they did go to the moon at least once yes. But yeah, there are some strange things with those photographs. Some are too perfect for example.
Have any of you Hoax Believers actually done any research beyond swallowing hook, line and sinker what you read on some idiotic CT site? I thought so. Run along now...be good little Moon Hoax Sheep and buy another Hoax DVD from Sibrel. Sorry guys...you're just Suckers and the JOKE IS ON YOU! LOL!
Love Kennedy and the US but.."Intelligence is a puzzle; gradually, as the separate pieces come together, an overall picture emerges. The countless theatres of operations come to life before your eyes. Then the process of deduction, the lessons of experience and the cold analysis of reports come into play". Count Alexander de Marenches, Director-General (1970 - 1981) of the Service de Documentation Extérieure et de Contre-Espionnage
The Moon Landings were so brilliantly organized, so finely crafted, so deftly directed, so masterfully concealed, so tightly controlled...AND the science generated so convincing that 99.99% of the WORLDS smartest scientists, engineers and professors were completely fooled...and are still being fooled...39 YEARS LATER!!! BUT...Apollo was so sloppy that the Science Tards of YT were able to uncover all the Secrets in 8 minutes? Excuse me for a few, while I LMAO!
Regrettably in 1965 with the end of the decade fast approaching and budgets blown out of all proportion the task was assigned to the celluloid masters of Hollywood to create the believable illusion that " THE GOAL " would be achieved. The unacceptable part about this is that a Government Department lied to its own people and to the rest of the world.
Really now. What are the odds that some random Internet Losers and Paranoid Nutjobs have been able to uncover the GREATEST SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD? Let's see...after 40 YEARS of international scientific scrutiny and analysis by Astronomers, Physicists, Geologists and Engineers, a bunch of Douchebag Moon Hoax Believers on YT are able to uncover ALL the hidden secrets. PUHH-LLEEEZZ. Back to your video games and porn sites...TARDS! LOL!
A Great American, 16 th President ( 1861 - 1865 ), Abraham Lincoln once said " You may fool all the people some of the time ; you can even fool some of the people all the time ; but you can't fool all the people all the time." with notable quotations attributed to him like this one, we can now appreciate why they called him " Honest Abe ", regrettably the NASA script writers of the late 1960 s obviously did not pay attention in their history class and hence here we are today.
Beautiful video mate, thankyou for posting. As always, Apollo shows us just what humankind is capable of when science, passion, political will, and detemination come together behind one unified goal!
What!? The moon landing was fake!? Ah man! I guess my government, and my teachers, and my parents and relatives who watched it happen, and my friends, and my school books, and my encyclopedia, and the internet is wrong! Man! this sucks! I'm glad that a group of conspiracy theorists came a long and told me right!
NASA spent US $ 30 Billion of the peoples' money and told a lie, although not all that money was wasted on "THE LIE". America and the World did benefit profoundly from the technological advancements made during that period, however it still does not excuse or pardon the system that allowed the deceit to manifest itself in the first place.
I have question on this. Let us say for the sake of argument they faked it. Well then, where did the technology come from? As far as I know, there has never being a technology developed by hollywood that had real world applications. I can't buy a blaster at a gun store, or trade in my car for a starship.
Stanley Kubrick made "2001 A Space Odyssey" released in 1968. He developed the technical cinematography, which was used a year later to make the Apollo series of movies. The movie gave audiences the illusion of space travel, landing on the moon and moon walks. The initial budget for "2001 ASO" was US$6 million. When NASA became involved the budget was increased to US$10 million and allowed the development of advanced special effects.
I wasn't asking about the technology for the special effects. I am talking about the technology developed from Apollo the Space Program.
these things don't just invent themselves. If it was all a fake, how can the technology exist? space.about. com /od /toolsequipment /ss / apollospinoffs . htm Just copy that into your browser, and remove the spaces. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
The rockets and the training and the kevlar, mylar, velcro and chips were real, getting into orbit was real, the bit about flying out to the moon, dropping down onto it , walking around on it and flying back off it was the faked bit.
If that is the case, how did they get the moon rocks? The hundreds of pounds of moon rocks, which match the later Russians few pounds of dust. How can the Americans be so far behind, yet be able to run the hundreds of sample and return probes, in secret even to the Russians, required to get all the moon rocks? Besides, some of the technology comes from items involved in the lunar landing. So, that takes us back to square one.
To-date, over 160 impact craters have been identified here on Earth. Millions of tonnes of dust and debris is pulled to terra firma every year, as Earth sweeps its way through the Solar -system
Dr Eugene Shoemaker said "the earth is strewn with lunar debris... a meteorite striking the moon at tremendous speed can eject hundreds of times more material than its own mass and Earth's gravity pulls it to Earth.
skolor . nacka. se/ samskolan / eaae / liu / noflash / Nonasteroidal-06-06-01-05. html
The only way we know the Lunar meteorites are from the moom is by comparing them the Luna and Apollo samples. However, the Space program samples do not show the oxydation and signs of heating and melting that the meteorites do. As well, only 20 metiorites have been identified so far. Far less then the moon rocks.
The lunar meteorites have mineralogy, chemistry and isotopic composition very close to Earth's own rocks because they were formed in this part of the solar system. Any thing that has different oxygen isotopes comes from a diferent part of the universe. Only 20 from the moon yet 25 from Mars.. mathematicaly at odds with probabilities..
There is similarites yes, but there is also important differances . en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Moon_ rock as well the moon rock show differances with lunar meteorites en.wikipedia. org/ wiki / Lunar_ meteorite
Also, the Lunar 16 and 20 match apollo material the 16 material coming after Apollo. This poses a forgery problem. How do you forge what you havn't seen?
To a naive populace, the Apollo Missions of landing a man on the moon and safely returning him to Earth in the late 1960s and early 1970s, provided sufficient propaganda at that time to fool the World. Today with a some what more educated and less gullible global society and with the aid of the home video and the world wide web, more informed, the wrong doings of the past have finally surfaced.
1,you just insulted my mother. 2,the people who believe in the Hoax Conspiracies are not scientists or experts in any of the related fields, the most prominent members make a living selling Dvd's containing 'never before seen footage' that has been available in the public domain for years. 3,these claims started shortly after the landing, and yet the people with the most to gain by exposing it, the Soviets, said nothing. What posssible motive could they have for keeping quiet? Thank you.
The Russians were leading the space race but did not try to land men on the moon because they knew it could not be done with 1960s technology. They were busy with their own propaganda. They too made their own moon movies in a similar manner to what the US did. They created fake lunar landscapes on Earth and presented the film as if it was on the moon.
Check out BBC TV series the Planets interview with Professor Bernard Lovell Director, Jodrell Bank Tracking Station UK 1951 -- 1981. openy states Russians didn't want 2 go 2 moon you'll also see a few snippets of both US and Russian moonscapes in the making..
watch?v=7PsXNVf00x0 your right there was a conspiracy, a conspiracy of silence on the Russians part. They didn't want the world to know they tried and failed. But, as with any large conspiracy, the truth came out. The Americans? They couldn't keep Watergate quiet.
OMFG crissyospace and sosnusa shut up u sound like losers!!! god your speakin habbits and choice of words suck you sound like friggen math geeks god!!!
"It's funny to see you spend all day every day doing this"
You seem to have a strange definition of "all day every day". Furthermore, you reply to me as much as I reply to you, so what does that say about your 'life'? ;)
Twice as much means, as in content, time spent got it?
HELLO ARE YOU LISTENING. Mature person?
Like I care about anything you or anyone else my think of me on the damn internet. Get real.
I have said this before, I agree to disagree with you. Thats called a mature position on an issue like this. Being narrow minded and only educated on this one issue and yet label everyone a CT or a hoaxer is just as insulting and childish.
Having a stance in a discussion (in this case, the stance that the landings were real) isn't the same as being 'narrow minded'. If that WAS true, the reciprocal (ie. being of the stance that the landings were faked) would be equally narrow minded. As I said - if you continue to post erroneous arguments, I'll continue to debunk them - it's nothing personal. If you want to agree to disagree, we can just leave it at that if you wish to stop promoting the hoax theories on these videos.
So on one hand you're saying that you're trying to take a mature position, yet on the other hand you've been using childish insults like "acid hippie"? Good one.
You already got caught in a LIE, They are indeed trying to weaken the Van Allen Belts by 1% in a year. So you again either trying to hide public information or are not indeed educated enough on this subject. So I'd watch what you say and how you claim it to be facts. How much respect should a Liar be shown?
Sorry, but I never lied. Please don't try to lecture me about 'insulting', when a fair proportion of your posts to me have included nothing but. I am not labelling everyone a CT or a hoaxer.
Now if you want to continue your random (and unjust) bashing parade against me (considering we've since gone way of topic), please continue it in my messages.
Actually 6 different Apollo missions landed on the moon.The reason Nasa would like to return to the moon is to actually observe the possibillities for us to launch a manflight to mars from the moon.
if man really achieved landing on the moon back in 69...then why they can't repeat it now,,,huh?? even we can't go to mars...why cant't we repeat landing on the moon again..for the 2nd time?? if they'll repeat it..then I'll believe it..it's been what like 38years and we haven't got the technology compared to the technology back then?? i don't think so....
It's pretty obvious that we can repeat it now, and we have the technology. But it's so expensive that it's politically difficult to get funding. Just going into orbit is expensive, even with modern technology. The only way they got funding in 1969 was because of the Cold War and all of Congress backed the president. And as a matter of fact, we are going back, NASA has launched Project Constellation. Look it up in Wikipedia.
only thing i agree with xfiles is we both like REM. The rest is bullshit, not a single constellation or series of stars and the nixon admin and NASA thought they could get away with the most stupid looking footage and photographic inconsistencies. they only took hassellblad still cameras and a westinghouse camera that incredibly takes black and white, color 8 and 35 mm and black and white video (poor) pictures.
Why the heck would you go all the way to the moon to waste your time taking pictures of the stars? Taking wide-field images of stars doesn't have much (if any) scientific worth. The only thing that would be at all worth wild astronomically would be a separate camera for imaging celestial objects - and what do you know, a UV telescopic device was taken on one of the trips (I can't remember which one at the moment) for that very purpose. And the images it took are available online too.
hey igor, you bought up another good point.. there was the westinghouse video camera, what was the film camera or was the westinghouse a film camera and if so, what was the video camera that they also took (2 cameras total?)?
they used film on the ship, the actual landing was live brodcast. given the limited signal compression I would say that is why the live was in B&W and not color.
Rockets and other objects, manmade and not, are tracked in space by SUN REFLECTION. It is always daytime in space! The V2 rocket in 1945 could make it from the moon to the Earth in a single stage. We have the Nazis to thank for the moon rocket-technology!(?)
The moons gravity is ten times less than earth! That is why thety wear lead boots! Plus the moon should be viewing a million stars or way more! Notice there are NONE. Why does the shot of the moon have no horizon? Because there was none!
Actually about 6 times less than that of the earth. The moon landings were a staged media event. Like how Apollo 13 was the one were they had a problem... coincidence I think not. 1960´s generation are all completely retarded.
duude no, just no, you can see some stars, just not very well, and in the videos, there wre absolutely NO stars in any, how fake can it get? you tell me
You cannot see stars in the daytime, even on the Moon!
At lunar night, you can see more stars than you can see at night anywhere back home on Earth. Cannot see stars in daytime on Mars. Sky is blue midday on Mars, just like Earth.
Sorry too hard to believe they went to the moon. It has been 30 years and we would rather put a floating space station other than put a station on the moon. Here is a good question.If you were the first person to land on the moon, would you tell everybody and do all the interviews to make people know what it is like to be on the moon since it is a huge feat for us humans?Now why did Neil Armstrong avoid all interviews.Just dont get it.Anyways life is about believing what you want to believe.
Don't forget that Neil Armstrong and the other astronauts during the times were all in the military, and if they spoke out of turn about the things that were classified in interviews as they would have like too, they would loose their jobs and their military status !
Most of the moon walkers left NASA and the military shortly after their respective moon walks anyway (some stayed with NASA for a bit longer). So for most of them military repercussions wouldn't have been a big deal.
Read Neil Armstrongs biography(or the biography of any other astronaut who refers to him)and you will see that Neil is just not a man who is comfortable with fame.He doesnt claim to be a great public speaker and he says he hates doing it.Hes above all an engineer and a pilot,not a public relations officer.Also,the cost/energy/possible danger of creating a base at the moon over a space station simply made it unfeasible,plus the fact that it would really serve no purpose.
Armstrong is the bigest of all the Liars. in fack he´s the frontman for the whole operation. he should receive several consecutive life sentences followed by an execution.
Sorry, but where do you pull this BS from? Perhaps you should try reading some of the biographies of the astronauts and other NASA officials. I've watched the BS moon hoax videos, so you hoaxers should read our material.
dude, everyone knows they are hiding it, how about you just put yourself in their shoes, and see if you wanna tell the whole world the government is running the show by blinding the audience, you would seriously have murderers on your front door step, the ones that eat fuckin beef all day and watch football all night and are proud of their fuckin countries mishaps like iraq for example
having known a guy who was an engineer who worked on the Apollo missions, I can tell you they were real! they pulled it all off in 69, had we faked any part of it the USSR would have used it to discredit us. the real question is why havent we gone to Mars yet?
It is amazing how many people that don't "believe" the moon landings were real still tell their kids there is a Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, ETC.
Wasborn: OK...we send astronauts back to the moon to check-up on things. They find the flags, rovers, LM's, science packages. They take pictures...bring some stuff back. Hoaxers will still just say it's all faked. What will stop them from crying fake? Hoaxers are simply idiots. It's hard to win an argument against an idiot.
Agreed. People see vdeos of my TT Brown 3-and 4 and six-foot diameter beamships, and say its a fake. So it's no use arguing with these fools. They won't even believe it if a UFO landed on their fron porch. They will just respond by going insane, and trying to blow it up. Don'be negative. Dont be a skeptic. A skeptic never discovered anything, or invented anything. Ever.
And do you seriously think that either would have persisted in their work/expressing their ideas, had they not been skeptical of the prevailing wisdom during their lives?
Are you suggesting that "free and independent" thought is mutually-exclusive of skepticism? Or that credulity is *more* conducive to independent thought, for that matter?
Let us agree to disagree. Had scientists been skeptics, they would not have made plans to go to the moon, or any advances in technology. Skeptics think EVERYTHING is impossible. Which that mindset, it insures failure, no matter what endeavour you are involved in! It is the opposite if having an open and unbiased mind. Skepticism is unhealthy, an has always been at the expense of progress. Prevailing wisdom of skeptics is that manned space travel is inmossible.
That's a description of "pathological skepticism," not skepticism in general. And personally, I think that is better-described as contrarianism than skepticism.
I really doubt that Copernicus would have come up with his theories had he not been *skeptical* of the idea of geocentrism. But, of course, he wouldn't have accepted heliocentrism if he had been pathologically-skeptical.
That is my whole point. Skepticism by its very nature, is a form of pathology, like the RELIGION of scientifism. Like all the "isms", is VERY bad. Because it prevents progress. "More is lost to science form skepticism than from Gullibility".
That statement has contributed to my own personal successes. I live by it, and my results speak for themselves, like my Beamship Variation III, on the Tube.
I agree with you to a degres - *excessive* / blind skepticism is a barrier to progress. But that needs to be put in context - and not generalized based on the worst-case.
Skepticism is only as good as the intellect of the person applying it; when it's applied by those who are intellectually and scientifically-honest, it's often one of the most effective tools of progress. A large amount of historical progress would never have taken place if it weren't rational skeptics.
I'd also add that healthy/rational skepticism is often the best antidote to widely-believed-but-incorrect dogma. To give an example, look up James Randi and "Project Alpha."
Randi conducted a hoax where he had two professional magicians participate in a research project on psychic powers. By essentially using tricks of their trade, the magicians convinced the researchers they had psychic powers (and, in the process, exposed the horribly-unscientific methods used by the researchers).
Randi also provides a good example of how excessive desire-to-believe can have negative effects. Some have been so determined to believe in the psychic abilities of those who Randi has debunked, that they have accused Randi himself of possessing psychic powers and using them hide the fact (don't ask me to explain *that* reasoning, it makes my brain hurt).
Desire to believe also causes HEALING. That can only be a good thing! Desire to believe causes mountains to move, literally. Non-belief creates blockages to such. Hope, dream, believe in wonders. They exist. But you're free to believe whatever you wish. If you believe in health,happiness, you will be healthy, happy. If you believe in being in shape, muscular, your body will be muscular. If you believe in knowlege, you radiate positive energy, that will affect others thousands of miles away.
Desire to believe is often little more than a poor substitute for a desire to learn. In many, many instances it has caused people to believe things which are completely false, and stubbornly oppose all attempts to correct those falsehoods.
So it's "obtuse" to point out the negative side of being excessively-credulous? But, somehow, you're not being obtuse by continually asserting that all skepticism is inherently-negative, despite ample evidence/examples to the contrary?
That's a rather inconsistent set of standards, don't you think?
Randi's antics to disprove many things failed; and the man is a classic example of the pathology of which I speak. Read about REMOTE VIEWING. Because of US gvt. projects,no secrets between superpowers; directly led fall of Red China,the 1970s, and the Soviet Union 1980s. "Suppression of the fantastic" is one of controlling methods of the power elite,governments, even if they know such exists! A skeptic will not even believe if UFO lands on their porch;that is their level spiritual devlopment.
Again, you're painting all skepticism with the brush of pathological skepticism, when that's really not the case - as the examples I've given demonstrates.
As to Randi, he successfully exposed many blatant fakes - there was Peter Popoff, for one. In what way has he been a failure, aside from your rhetorical statement that he's an "example of pathology"?
Just look at the man's past and present actions. Noone is all bad, however. Not even Randi. Randi is a simple magician, not a scientist, or someone dedicated to the expansion of human knowlege, and potential. Back on topic now, I wont go round in circles.
Randi's accomplishments certainly carry more weight than your assertions about him, which you have yet to support. I've offered two examples, where he's been proven correct in his skepticism (Project Alpha and Popoff). Do you have any specific evidence suggesting he was wrong in those cases, or examples of other incidences where he was proven wrong? So far, you've posted nothing but vague implications about his motivation.
Look them up yourself, I have no time to waste. We are doing actual research and having successes, not making negative remarks about other's research. That is what my time is spent on. Go to theyfly dot com . I am done. Those who want this info will find their way to my and other's work. I am a published scientist who has been lecturing and writing in this field for 17-years, you are not.
I haven't mentioned your research once - what does it have to do with anything? *You* made the claims, the burden of proof rests on *you* - it looks like you're just resorting to the old "I'm an expert so I don't have to back up anything I say" shtick.
Sorry for the HUBRIS. I was just making a point that gaining knowlege, not just debunking everything, is a more noble and ultimately more profitable pursuit. Because it adds to our knowlege of ourselves and the universe. Science does not EVER stand still. One thing my researh has taught me is that there is an INFINITE expansion of knowlege, out there. Peace. It would take too long to list everything. You can lookit up yourself, if you're interested. I have a Godzillion emails, literally!
As for "going around in circles," what do you expect? You've made the same assertions repeatedly, without really answering/countering replies to those assertions. So if you're arguing in circles, you're doing it yourself mate.
I have NO TIME to do your research for you. YOU do your research for you. Maybe I am "too nice". But I am a published, successful scientist most of my life. I have been researching antigravity methodologies since 1982, my knowlege base is prized all over the world. Do your reading, I am done with replying to your comments. My work speaks for itself, while all you have is INVECTIVE. Read.
So to recap: you have time to make outrageous, absolutist claims about skepticism, James Randi, etc - yet you don't have time to substantiate them in any way whatsoever.
To all you idiots arguing about the flag "waiving": They propped up the flag on another pole so that people could see the flag upright, instead of just jumbled up on a vertical pole. That's also why the flag is not "blowing valiantly in the wind" there's no wind. De De Dee. You all make me sick.
Why do hoaxers ask us to believe mankind can launch a 365 foot rocket into orbit, on 6.5 million pounds of thrust, perfect every time, in front of billions of watchers, but you cannot believe NASA can re-light a single small 3rd stage engine to send the CSM/LM into a circumlunar orbit?
A lot of people have hoax believers lumped together. Thats very unfair. There is a large segment who believes we went there, but the footage was faked and others who believe we didnt go at all & still more that think we went but in the 70's not in 69. You should perhaps consider that when you are writing comments like this. If you wanna know why ppl would think this do some research.
Search YT: moon hoax conspiracy lunar landings and look at whats out there,like my vid cameraman on he moon.
alright enough about the moon landing that its fake. it is really not fake indeed. now i for one is a chinese and im really ashamed of you americans that think its fake. i just know that the reason the flag was waving is because they tied a string to the pole so that someone would pull it to make the flag wave. Then neil armstrong saluted. it resembles something heroic i think lol.
I watched a tv show with the proof of it's fake. Watch the moon sand as the ATV drives. If it was for real ther dust would keep on floating but instead it landed right back on the ground. Gravity
I watched a tv show with the proof of it's fake. Watch the moon sand as the ATV drives. If it was for real ther dust would keep on floating but instead it landed right back on the ground. Gravity
Excellent video. Aren't they planning two missions right now? One to go back to the moon with-in the next ten years and the other a manned mission to Mars by 2020.
Cool.. think you might want to know this then... they just tested the last set of rocket engines of the design that has been used the last 30 yrs.... so they are designing new engines, that are supposed to eventually be used on a new shuttle design that will go to the moon.
We have electrogravitics technology at Indian Springs, NV that is fuelless, non-polluting, all-electric, and silent. The space program you see funded by the Govt is all a huge show and public-relations COVERUP, like Project Blue Book! Dr. Cain at NASA worked with John Searl, and his high-Voltage flying saucer prototypes, and the P-11 was tested in 1977 at Edwards in Calif. We are being lied to.
If we do- cool and great. But until there some decent evidence the belief for such is going to be on the shelf.
ANd yes the Airforce at least has flying saucers- altho none with extraterrestrial technology. They had at least 2 saucershaped test vehicles - one known as the flying pancake in some circles, and the other was to be an advanced aircraft cpable of delivering nuclear weapons.
But we have uncounted billions to spend on invading countries, and war and killing and putting good people in harms way. Private industry has the key. go to searleffect dot com
Not official money as that can be accounted for - and every or almost every branch of the gov is usually requesting more than they get.
if there are billions of unaccounteed money (maybe in the private secotrs?) the majority of the various branches of the government don't feel any influence from it.
Well if you think about it it's not that hard to see that we could go to the moon- during that time the SR 71 was developed... and no other jet aircraft has yet to go faster or has been able to beat it... even with todays technology.
Simply amazing!!! Done with 60's technology...incredible!!! When will we return? Who knows. Just imagine how expensive it will be now!!! Probably have to sub it out to China. Hoaxers...get out of the trailer! WTG Reg! LOLOLOL! Thanks for the video Xfile.
Personally I think faking the moon landing would've been a more elaborate and costly feat than actually going there (which I am certain they did). There'll always be the armchair conspiracy experts who discount the moon landing because "hey, how could that flag have fluttered if there was no air?" and other such faulty pseudoscientific logic. Just have to remember that those people are a tiny minority of stooges and they rarely leave their trailers anyway...
Yes its a great short presentation of the most memerable parts of the Apollo 11 trip to the Moon. There is no way it is fake, every conspiracy theory has been debunked and there isn't one out there that I know of which I cannot debunk. I will keep looking and I hope that those who don't belive will look for the supporting evidence behind the theorist claims and that they look at both sides and see how the heaviest side out weighs the other on all counts, and that is the moon landing happened.
right right... then why was the flag moving if there was no air or wind, huh? dudes!! check it out in the internet!! gosh..i mean seriousy, though!!
vikacutie 3 years ago
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN MEN ON THE MOON..
gepperman08 3 years ago
It was daytime on the moon so they had to set their camera to daytime settings.
Thus the camera was only able the destinguish the bright light of the sun but not the faint light of stars.
DTanza 3 years ago
They found cartracks on picture's they made from the moon, america didnt land at all on the moon at that time, how could they land on the moon with almost a wooden + aliminium ship and go and come back without having any problems, while we are still struggling to go and come back and our technicus are more advanced then they ??? tell me if im true or false..
JackassRom 3 years ago
U know the Apollo ship was from aliminium, and the place where they filmed it was in the sahara desert, they picture u see when it assume's to go into the air is all filmed in a studio.. they did shoot a satalite there.
As u see they are standing on the moon, if u watch someone's shadow and the shadow of the flagpole, it's diffrent begave u put diffrent lights in diffrent positions.
JackassRom 3 years ago
Well this is the truth,
America never landed on the moon in 1969 they did land on the moon but not then.
JackassRom 3 years ago
Why cant we demand to have someone like that in office. Is there anyone out there up to it? God dangit we need more JFK's less GW's.
Kharmak 3 years ago
The flag isnt moving, !
Tukkietukkietuk 3 years ago
if you believe we put a man on the moon you must be dumb yank or a retard
zxcts 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I have a couple of questions:
1. Why there are no stars or sun?
2.How is that flag moving if on the moon is no air?
And How
rares2cristea 3 years ago
yeah exactly what i was thinking. that takes serious balls.
ismokereefer 3 years ago
For the people who don`t believe that we landed on the moon.
Don`t try using the perfect pictures argument it makes you sound stupid.
Those "Perfect pictures" are pictures that have been re-mastered into better quality.
DTanza 3 years ago
that video is fake i believe thAT america did land on the moon but not in 1969
maloi888 4 years ago
k... listin up guys... i worked for NASA for 6 years... trust me WE LANDED ON THE MOON... so all of you hoax believers... GET OVER IT! IT'S REAL
ScottyGag 4 years ago 4
Could you expain those faked photographs?
josacra 4 years ago
I believe they did go to the moon at least once yes. But yeah, there are some strange things with those photographs. Some are too perfect for example.
Jeroenske 4 years ago
Have any of you Hoax Believers actually done any research beyond swallowing hook, line and sinker what you read on some idiotic CT site? I thought so. Run along now...be good little Moon Hoax Sheep and buy another Hoax DVD from Sibrel. Sorry guys...you're just Suckers and the JOKE IS ON YOU! LOL!
LindaStevensBZ 4 years ago
Love Kennedy and the US but.."Intelligence is a puzzle; gradually, as the separate pieces come together, an overall picture emerges. The countless theatres of operations come to life before your eyes. Then the process of deduction, the lessons of experience and the cold analysis of reports come into play". Count Alexander de Marenches, Director-General (1970 - 1981) of the Service de Documentation Extérieure et de Contre-Espionnage
yaluobud 4 years ago
THE ULTIMATE HOAXER PARADOX!
The Moon Landings were so brilliantly organized, so finely crafted, so deftly directed, so masterfully concealed, so tightly controlled...AND the science generated so convincing that 99.99% of the WORLDS smartest scientists, engineers and professors were completely fooled...and are still being fooled...39 YEARS LATER!!! BUT...Apollo was so sloppy that the Science Tards of YT were able to uncover all the Secrets in 8 minutes? Excuse me for a few, while I LMAO!
LindaStevensBZ 4 years ago
Regrettably in 1965 with the end of the decade fast approaching and budgets blown out of all proportion the task was assigned to the celluloid masters of Hollywood to create the believable illusion that " THE GOAL " would be achieved. The unacceptable part about this is that a Government Department lied to its own people and to the rest of the world.
yaluobud 4 years ago
PEOPLE:
Really now. What are the odds that some random Internet Losers and Paranoid Nutjobs have been able to uncover the GREATEST SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD? Let's see...after 40 YEARS of international scientific scrutiny and analysis by Astronomers, Physicists, Geologists and Engineers, a bunch of Douchebag Moon Hoax Believers on YT are able to uncover ALL the hidden secrets. PUHH-LLEEEZZ. Back to your video games and porn sites...TARDS! LOL!
LindaStevensBZ 4 years ago
A Great American, 16 th President ( 1861 - 1865 ), Abraham Lincoln once said " You may fool all the people some of the time ; you can even fool some of the people all the time ; but you can't fool all the people all the time." with notable quotations attributed to him like this one, we can now appreciate why they called him " Honest Abe ", regrettably the NASA script writers of the late 1960 s obviously did not pay attention in their history class and hence here we are today.
yaluobud 4 years ago
omg shit.... why is ther musik lol i gonna use it to my scholl porjeckt.. and you cant hear neil armstrong say the words....
azzskicker 4 years ago
Beautiful video mate, thankyou for posting. As always, Apollo shows us just what humankind is capable of when science, passion, political will, and detemination come together behind one unified goal!
zerrichan 4 years ago
What!? The moon landing was fake!? Ah man! I guess my government, and my teachers, and my parents and relatives who watched it happen, and my friends, and my school books, and my encyclopedia, and the internet is wrong! Man! this sucks! I'm glad that a group of conspiracy theorists came a long and told me right!
JPaxton1616 4 years ago
NASA spent US $ 30 Billion of the peoples' money and told a lie, although not all that money was wasted on "THE LIE". America and the World did benefit profoundly from the technological advancements made during that period, however it still does not excuse or pardon the system that allowed the deceit to manifest itself in the first place.
yaluobud 4 years ago
I have question on this. Let us say for the sake of argument they faked it. Well then, where did the technology come from? As far as I know, there has never being a technology developed by hollywood that had real world applications. I can't buy a blaster at a gun store, or trade in my car for a starship.
loperspest 4 years ago
Stanley Kubrick made "2001 A Space Odyssey" released in 1968. He developed the technical cinematography, which was used a year later to make the Apollo series of movies. The movie gave audiences the illusion of space travel, landing on the moon and moon walks. The initial budget for "2001 ASO" was US$6 million. When NASA became involved the budget was increased to US$10 million and allowed the development of advanced special effects.
yaluobud 4 years ago
I wasn't asking about the technology for the special effects. I am talking about the technology developed from Apollo the Space Program.
these things don't just invent themselves. If it was all a fake, how can the technology exist? space.about. com /od /toolsequipment /ss / apollospinoffs . htm Just copy that into your browser, and remove the spaces. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
loperspest 4 years ago
The rockets and the training and the kevlar, mylar, velcro and chips were real, getting into orbit was real, the bit about flying out to the moon, dropping down onto it , walking around on it and flying back off it was the faked bit.
yaluobud 4 years ago
If that is the case, how did they get the moon rocks? The hundreds of pounds of moon rocks, which match the later Russians few pounds of dust. How can the Americans be so far behind, yet be able to run the hundreds of sample and return probes, in secret even to the Russians, required to get all the moon rocks? Besides, some of the technology comes from items involved in the lunar landing. So, that takes us back to square one.
loperspest 4 years ago
To-date, over 160 impact craters have been identified here on Earth. Millions of tonnes of dust and debris is pulled to terra firma every year, as Earth sweeps its way through the Solar -system
Dr Eugene Shoemaker said "the earth is strewn with lunar debris... a meteorite striking the moon at tremendous speed can eject hundreds of times more material than its own mass and Earth's gravity pulls it to Earth.
check out : National Geographic February 1969
yaluobud 4 years ago
skolor . nacka. se/ samskolan / eaae / liu / noflash / Nonasteroidal-06-06-01-05. html
The only way we know the Lunar meteorites are from the moom is by comparing them the Luna and Apollo samples. However, the Space program samples do not show the oxydation and signs of heating and melting that the meteorites do. As well, only 20 metiorites have been identified so far. Far less then the moon rocks.
loperspest 4 years ago
loperspect,
The lunar meteorites have mineralogy, chemistry and isotopic composition very close to Earth's own rocks because they were formed in this part of the solar system. Any thing that has different oxygen isotopes comes from a diferent part of the universe. Only 20 from the moon yet 25 from Mars.. mathematicaly at odds with probabilities..
yaluobud 4 years ago
There is similarites yes, but there is also important differances . en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Moon_ rock as well the moon rock show differances with lunar meteorites en.wikipedia. org/ wiki / Lunar_ meteorite
Also, the Lunar 16 and 20 match apollo material the 16 material coming after Apollo. This poses a forgery problem. How do you forge what you havn't seen?
loperspest 4 years ago
To a naive populace, the Apollo Missions of landing a man on the moon and safely returning him to Earth in the late 1960s and early 1970s, provided sufficient propaganda at that time to fool the World. Today with a some what more educated and less gullible global society and with the aid of the home video and the world wide web, more informed, the wrong doings of the past have finally surfaced.
yaluobud 4 years ago
1,you just insulted my mother. 2,the people who believe in the Hoax Conspiracies are not scientists or experts in any of the related fields, the most prominent members make a living selling Dvd's containing 'never before seen footage' that has been available in the public domain for years. 3,these claims started shortly after the landing, and yet the people with the most to gain by exposing it, the Soviets, said nothing. What posssible motive could they have for keeping quiet? Thank you.
loperspest 4 years ago
The Russians were leading the space race but did not try to land men on the moon because they knew it could not be done with 1960s technology. They were busy with their own propaganda. They too made their own moon movies in a similar manner to what the US did. They created fake lunar landscapes on Earth and presented the film as if it was on the moon.
yaluobud 4 years ago
COuld you provide some sources for this statement? Does this include the probe programs?
loperspest 4 years ago
Check out BBC TV series the Planets interview with Professor Bernard Lovell Director, Jodrell Bank Tracking Station UK 1951 -- 1981. openy states Russians didn't want 2 go 2 moon you'll also see a few snippets of both US and Russian moonscapes in the making..
see also National Geographic Mag Feb 1969.
yaluobud 4 years ago
watch?v=7PsXNVf00x0 your right there was a conspiracy, a conspiracy of silence on the Russians part. They didn't want the world to know they tried and failed. But, as with any large conspiracy, the truth came out. The Americans? They couldn't keep Watergate quiet.
loperspest 4 years ago
nvm i take back what i said.... 1 is a space nerd and the other is old
linkinparkRATM 4 years ago
OMFG crissyospace and sosnusa shut up u sound like losers!!! god your speakin habbits and choice of words suck you sound like friggen math geeks god!!!
linkinparkRATM 4 years ago
yeah that's a nice song, and it says: "If you believed they put a man on the moon...nothing is cool"!
kalbasak 4 years ago
Hey, what happens when you catch a shill lying?
Nothing, they just ignore it.
SOSnUSA 4 years ago
I hope that wasn't directed at me. ;)
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
Lol, it's funny to watch you make all these silly assumptions about everyone. :)
It's funny to see you spend all day every day doing this. nice life you have there.
SOSnUSA 4 years ago
"It's funny to see you spend all day every day doing this"
You seem to have a strange definition of "all day every day". Furthermore, you reply to me as much as I reply to you, so what does that say about your 'life'? ;)
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
Thats a Big fat lie. You reply twice as much as I do. or are you having another Acid flash back? are you confused again? breath deep and relax.
sit down and stuff your face with more cookies.
SOSnUSA 4 years ago
I reply to you, and you reply to me. We converse with each other equally. ;)
Keep up with the insults, you're really promoting yourself as a mature person. ;)
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
Twice as much means, as in content, time spent got it?
HELLO ARE YOU LISTENING. Mature person?
Like I care about anything you or anyone else my think of me on the damn internet. Get real.
I have said this before, I agree to disagree with you. Thats called a mature position on an issue like this. Being narrow minded and only educated on this one issue and yet label everyone a CT or a hoaxer is just as insulting and childish.
SOSnUSA 4 years ago
Having a stance in a discussion (in this case, the stance that the landings were real) isn't the same as being 'narrow minded'. If that WAS true, the reciprocal (ie. being of the stance that the landings were faked) would be equally narrow minded. As I said - if you continue to post erroneous arguments, I'll continue to debunk them - it's nothing personal. If you want to agree to disagree, we can just leave it at that if you wish to stop promoting the hoax theories on these videos.
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
So on one hand you're saying that you're trying to take a mature position, yet on the other hand you've been using childish insults like "acid hippie"? Good one.
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
You already got caught in a LIE, They are indeed trying to weaken the Van Allen Belts by 1% in a year. So you again either trying to hide public information or are not indeed educated enough on this subject. So I'd watch what you say and how you claim it to be facts. How much respect should a Liar be shown?
SOSnUSA 4 years ago
More childish (and inaccurate) insults, eh? Nice try.
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
OH you get caught lying and now it's all about insults.
Remember you said yourself you knew nothing about other conspiracies and yet label everyone a CT or a HOAXER. is that not insulting?
Are you some how better than anyone else and feel like you can judge people. Maybe you should put that over inflated ego in check.
SOSnUSA 4 years ago
Sorry, but I never lied. Please don't try to lecture me about 'insulting', when a fair proportion of your posts to me have included nothing but. I am not labelling everyone a CT or a hoaxer.
Now if you want to continue your random (and unjust) bashing parade against me (considering we've since gone way of topic), please continue it in my messages.
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
We all know chrissy, It if comes from the official mouth you take it as gold. Have a nice day
SOSnUSA 4 years ago
Lol, it's funny to watch you make all these silly assumptions about everyone. :)
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
No body has ever gone to the moon.
The Val Allen Belts would kill them.
SOSnUSA 4 years ago
Incorrect on both counts. :)
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
Well I guess you should do some reading and pull your head out of the sand.
Our government set off a High Altitude nuke to try and weaken the Van Allen belts.
The STS-75 tether was another try at weakening the Van Allen belts. Why if it is indeed harmless?
SOSnUSA 4 years ago
"Well I guess you should do some reading and pull your head out of the sand."
Nice try there, but your childish attempts still aren't working.
"Our government"
I keep telling you, I'm not American.
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
Also, STS-75 had nothing to do with 'weakening' the Van Allen belts. More conspiracy theories to back up an already ridiculous conspiracy theory? ;)
Furthermore, the Starfish Prime experiment didn't impede the Apollo missions at all. Research is your friend. ;)
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
Actually 6 different Apollo missions landed on the moon.The reason Nasa would like to return to the moon is to actually observe the possibillities for us to launch a manflight to mars from the moon.
balarat84 4 years ago 2
the americans were on the moon-there is enough proof.
as a matter of fact,with a bunch of idiots like you are,they would not have even tried it.
stevehislop 4 years ago
the russians were the first on the moon
rilani 4 years ago
Of course the Americans didn't land on the Moon. It was the Illuminati. The Masons helped.
somecallmespock 4 years ago
here is why -
1) there are no stars in the moonwalk footage
2) the americn flag had creases in it
3) the blue prints of the ship were mysteriously destoryed.
4) all the key crew members were killed in car accidents.
5) the video footage's quality was too good, radiation would of fried the film, making it poor quality
-i could go on, but i have a life.
roborob880 4 years ago
I hear ya but wouldn't other countries but tracking the spaceflight knowing it went up there?
therightstuff90731 4 years ago
the americans never landed on the moon its a fake.
roborob880 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Does anyone no where I can get a video of the lonely men astronaughts boinking eachother in the ass?
MarkEan66 4 years ago
if man really achieved landing on the moon back in 69...then why they can't repeat it now,,,huh?? even we can't go to mars...why cant't we repeat landing on the moon again..for the 2nd time?? if they'll repeat it..then I'll believe it..it's been what like 38years and we haven't got the technology compared to the technology back then?? i don't think so....
cutediane24 4 years ago
It's pretty obvious that we can repeat it now, and we have the technology. But it's so expensive that it's politically difficult to get funding. Just going into orbit is expensive, even with modern technology. The only way they got funding in 1969 was because of the Cold War and all of Congress backed the president. And as a matter of fact, we are going back, NASA has launched Project Constellation. Look it up in Wikipedia.
supersexyspacemonkey 4 years ago
only thing i agree with xfiles is we both like REM. The rest is bullshit, not a single constellation or series of stars and the nixon admin and NASA thought they could get away with the most stupid looking footage and photographic inconsistencies. they only took hassellblad still cameras and a westinghouse camera that incredibly takes black and white, color 8 and 35 mm and black and white video (poor) pictures.
imnazhole 4 years ago
Why the heck would you go all the way to the moon to waste your time taking pictures of the stars? Taking wide-field images of stars doesn't have much (if any) scientific worth. The only thing that would be at all worth wild astronomically would be a separate camera for imaging celestial objects - and what do you know, a UV telescopic device was taken on one of the trips (I can't remember which one at the moment) for that very purpose. And the images it took are available online too.
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
hey igor, you bought up another good point.. there was the westinghouse video camera, what was the film camera or was the westinghouse a film camera and if so, what was the video camera that they also took (2 cameras total?)?
imnazhole 4 years ago
11 was faked no question
CINDYSHEEHANWASRIGHT 4 years ago
Nope, it was real. :)
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
Some of this footage is NOT video. It's film. It's much higher resolution than the live video.
This is a GREAT VIDEO. I have never seen some of this FILM FOOTAGE of the first moon landing. They always show the VIDEO instead.
Thanks
igormccaslin 4 years ago
if it was hoax, then how the hell did they get those rocks :P
majav15mg 4 years ago
blackandwhite camera colour taped rocks? what happened to the technology they had when taping it on the ship?
superfly000 4 years ago
what the hell are you talkin about
majav15mg 4 years ago
they used film on the ship, the actual landing was live brodcast. given the limited signal compression I would say that is why the live was in B&W and not color.
Defconfx 4 years ago
Rockets and other objects, manmade and not, are tracked in space by SUN REFLECTION. It is always daytime in space! The V2 rocket in 1945 could make it from the moon to the Earth in a single stage. We have the Nazis to thank for the moon rocket-technology!(?)
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
The moons gravity is ten times less than earth! That is why thety wear lead boots! Plus the moon should be viewing a million stars or way more! Notice there are NONE. Why does the shot of the moon have no horizon? Because there was none!
kirkbakken 4 years ago
Actually about 6 times less than that of the earth. The moon landings were a staged media event. Like how Apollo 13 was the one were they had a problem... coincidence I think not. 1960´s generation are all completely retarded.
HilariousD 4 years ago
No you know how in a bright lit city you can`t see any stars?
Well on the moon the light from the camera and moon lander was making the same affect.
DUH!
DTanza 4 years ago
duude no, just no, you can see some stars, just not very well, and in the videos, there wre absolutely NO stars in any, how fake can it get? you tell me
superfly000 4 years ago
You cannot see stars in the daytime, even on the Moon!
At lunar night, you can see more stars than you can see at night anywhere back home on Earth. Cannot see stars in daytime on Mars. Sky is blue midday on Mars, just like Earth.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
"Dude," you might want to read up on some basic photography - things like exposure time and aperture width.
lovetoeatallthefood 4 years ago
We had the technology on our side back in '69 too. ;)
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
Sorry too hard to believe they went to the moon. It has been 30 years and we would rather put a floating space station other than put a station on the moon. Here is a good question.If you were the first person to land on the moon, would you tell everybody and do all the interviews to make people know what it is like to be on the moon since it is a huge feat for us humans?Now why did Neil Armstrong avoid all interviews.Just dont get it.Anyways life is about believing what you want to believe.
Balindos 4 years ago
Don't forget that Neil Armstrong and the other astronauts during the times were all in the military, and if they spoke out of turn about the things that were classified in interviews as they would have like too, they would loose their jobs and their military status !
allexx123 4 years ago
Most of the moon walkers left NASA and the military shortly after their respective moon walks anyway (some stayed with NASA for a bit longer). So for most of them military repercussions wouldn't have been a big deal.
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
Read Neil Armstrongs biography(or the biography of any other astronaut who refers to him)and you will see that Neil is just not a man who is comfortable with fame.He doesnt claim to be a great public speaker and he says he hates doing it.Hes above all an engineer and a pilot,not a public relations officer.Also,the cost/energy/possible danger of creating a base at the moon over a space station simply made it unfeasible,plus the fact that it would really serve no purpose.
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
Armstrong is the bigest of all the Liars. in fack he´s the frontman for the whole operation. he should receive several consecutive life sentences followed by an execution.
HilariousD 4 years ago
Sorry, but where do you pull this BS from? Perhaps you should try reading some of the biographies of the astronauts and other NASA officials. I've watched the BS moon hoax videos, so you hoaxers should read our material.
ChrissyoSpace 4 years ago
dude, everyone knows they are hiding it, how about you just put yourself in their shoes, and see if you wanna tell the whole world the government is running the show by blinding the audience, you would seriously have murderers on your front door step, the ones that eat fuckin beef all day and watch football all night and are proud of their fuckin countries mishaps like iraq for example
superfly000 4 years ago
having known a guy who was an engineer who worked on the Apollo missions, I can tell you they were real! they pulled it all off in 69, had we faked any part of it the USSR would have used it to discredit us. the real question is why havent we gone to Mars yet?
Defconfx 4 years ago
My uncle worked at the CAPE and he knew Armstrong and his family personally. It happened.
allexx123 4 years ago
Sorry but I dont believe it. But huge feat to get to space back in those days, it just we still are doing the same thing today 30 years later.
Balindos 4 years ago
I guess it is too dangerous yet and the power needed to get to Mars and the size of a craft is not possible yet. It takes years to get to Mars.
allexx123 4 years ago
its because the transformers live there
superfly000 4 years ago
Stupid nerd, ffs... man was on the moon! 1969, learn it and stop be naiv!
R104D 5 years ago
It is amazing how many people that don't "believe" the moon landings were real still tell their kids there is a Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, ETC.
str8tup 5 years ago
Wasborn: OK...we send astronauts back to the moon to check-up on things. They find the flags, rovers, LM's, science packages. They take pictures...bring some stuff back. Hoaxers will still just say it's all faked. What will stop them from crying fake? Hoaxers are simply idiots. It's hard to win an argument against an idiot.
LindaStevensBZ 5 years ago
Agreed. People see vdeos of my TT Brown 3-and 4 and six-foot diameter beamships, and say its a fake. So it's no use arguing with these fools. They won't even believe it if a UFO landed on their fron porch. They will just respond by going insane, and trying to blow it up. Don'be negative. Dont be a skeptic. A skeptic never discovered anything, or invented anything. Ever.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
"A skeptic never discovered anything, or invented anything. Ever."
What a silly statement. Have you not heard of Copernicus or Gallileo, for example?
lovetoeatallthefood 4 years ago
O do not think these free-thinking pioneers were "skeptics". Quite the opposite.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
And do you seriously think that either would have persisted in their work/expressing their ideas, had they not been skeptical of the prevailing wisdom during their lives?
lovetoeatallthefood 4 years ago
That is not skepticism. That is called free and independent thinking.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
Are you suggesting that "free and independent" thought is mutually-exclusive of skepticism? Or that credulity is *more* conducive to independent thought, for that matter?
lovetoeatallthefood 4 years ago
Um, WHAT???
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
I guess that answers my question.
BTW, I hope you do realize that science itself is essentially a systemization of skepticism.
lovetoeatallthefood 4 years ago
Let us agree to disagree. Had scientists been skeptics, they would not have made plans to go to the moon, or any advances in technology. Skeptics think EVERYTHING is impossible. Which that mindset, it insures failure, no matter what endeavour you are involved in! It is the opposite if having an open and unbiased mind. Skepticism is unhealthy, an has always been at the expense of progress. Prevailing wisdom of skeptics is that manned space travel is inmossible.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
"Skeptics think EVERYTHING is impossible."
That's a description of "pathological skepticism," not skepticism in general. And personally, I think that is better-described as contrarianism than skepticism.
I really doubt that Copernicus would have come up with his theories had he not been *skeptical* of the idea of geocentrism. But, of course, he wouldn't have accepted heliocentrism if he had been pathologically-skeptical.
lovetoeatallthefood 4 years ago
That is my whole point. Skepticism by its very nature, is a form of pathology, like the RELIGION of scientifism. Like all the "isms", is VERY bad. Because it prevents progress. "More is lost to science form skepticism than from Gullibility".
That statement has contributed to my own personal successes. I live by it, and my results speak for themselves, like my Beamship Variation III, on the Tube.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
I agree with you to a degres - *excessive* / blind skepticism is a barrier to progress. But that needs to be put in context - and not generalized based on the worst-case.
Skepticism is only as good as the intellect of the person applying it; when it's applied by those who are intellectually and scientifically-honest, it's often one of the most effective tools of progress. A large amount of historical progress would never have taken place if it weren't rational skeptics.
lovetoeatallthefood 4 years ago
I'd also add that healthy/rational skepticism is often the best antidote to widely-believed-but-incorrect dogma. To give an example, look up James Randi and "Project Alpha."
Randi conducted a hoax where he had two professional magicians participate in a research project on psychic powers. By essentially using tricks of their trade, the magicians convinced the researchers they had psychic powers (and, in the process, exposed the horribly-unscientific methods used by the researchers).
lovetoeatallthefood 4 years ago
Randi also provides a good example of how excessive desire-to-believe can have negative effects. Some have been so determined to believe in the psychic abilities of those who Randi has debunked, that they have accused Randi himself of possessing psychic powers and using them hide the fact (don't ask me to explain *that* reasoning, it makes my brain hurt).
lovetoeatallthefood 4 years ago
Desire to believe also causes HEALING. That can only be a good thing! Desire to believe causes mountains to move, literally. Non-belief creates blockages to such. Hope, dream, believe in wonders. They exist. But you're free to believe whatever you wish. If you believe in health,happiness, you will be healthy, happy. If you believe in being in shape, muscular, your body will be muscular. If you believe in knowlege, you radiate positive energy, that will affect others thousands of miles away.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
Desire to believe is often little more than a poor substitute for a desire to learn. In many, many instances it has caused people to believe things which are completely false, and stubbornly oppose all attempts to correct those falsehoods.
lovetoeatallthefood 4 years ago
Tou KNOW that's not the type of negativity I am espousing, don't be obtuse.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
So it's "obtuse" to point out the negative side of being excessively-credulous? But, somehow, you're not being obtuse by continually asserting that all skepticism is inherently-negative, despite ample evidence/examples to the contrary?
That's a rather inconsistent set of standards, don't you think?
lovetoeatallthefood 4 years ago
Randi's antics to disprove many things failed; and the man is a classic example of the pathology of which I speak. Read about REMOTE VIEWING. Because of US gvt. projects,no secrets between superpowers; directly led fall of Red China,the 1970s, and the Soviet Union 1980s. "Suppression of the fantastic" is one of controlling methods of the power elite,governments, even if they know such exists! A skeptic will not even believe if UFO lands on their porch;that is their level spiritual devlopment.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
Again, you're painting all skepticism with the brush of pathological skepticism, when that's really not the case - as the examples I've given demonstrates.
As to Randi, he successfully exposed many blatant fakes - there was Peter Popoff, for one. In what way has he been a failure, aside from your rhetorical statement that he's an "example of pathology"?
lovetoeatallthefood 4 years ago
Just look at the man's past and present actions. Noone is all bad, however. Not even Randi. Randi is a simple magician, not a scientist, or someone dedicated to the expansion of human knowlege, and potential. Back on topic now, I wont go round in circles.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
Randi's accomplishments certainly carry more weight than your assertions about him, which you have yet to support. I've offered two examples, where he's been proven correct in his skepticism (Project Alpha and Popoff). Do you have any specific evidence suggesting he was wrong in those cases, or examples of other incidences where he was proven wrong? So far, you've posted nothing but vague implications about his motivation.
lovetoeatallthefood 4 years ago
Look them up yourself, I have no time to waste. We are doing actual research and having successes, not making negative remarks about other's research. That is what my time is spent on. Go to theyfly dot com . I am done. Those who want this info will find their way to my and other's work. I am a published scientist who has been lecturing and writing in this field for 17-years, you are not.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
I haven't mentioned your research once - what does it have to do with anything? *You* made the claims, the burden of proof rests on *you* - it looks like you're just resorting to the old "I'm an expert so I don't have to back up anything I say" shtick.
lovetoeatallthefood 4 years ago
Sorry for the HUBRIS. I was just making a point that gaining knowlege, not just debunking everything, is a more noble and ultimately more profitable pursuit. Because it adds to our knowlege of ourselves and the universe. Science does not EVER stand still. One thing my researh has taught me is that there is an INFINITE expansion of knowlege, out there. Peace. It would take too long to list everything. You can lookit up yourself, if you're interested. I have a Godzillion emails, literally!
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
As for "going around in circles," what do you expect? You've made the same assertions repeatedly, without really answering/countering replies to those assertions. So if you're arguing in circles, you're doing it yourself mate.
lovetoeatallthefood 4 years ago
I have NO TIME to do your research for you. YOU do your research for you. Maybe I am "too nice". But I am a published, successful scientist most of my life. I have been researching antigravity methodologies since 1982, my knowlege base is prized all over the world. Do your reading, I am done with replying to your comments. My work speaks for itself, while all you have is INVECTIVE. Read.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
So to recap: you have time to make outrageous, absolutist claims about skepticism, James Randi, etc - yet you don't have time to substantiate them in any way whatsoever.
How very scientific of you.
lovetoeatallthefood 4 years ago
To all you idiots arguing about the flag "waiving": They propped up the flag on another pole so that people could see the flag upright, instead of just jumbled up on a vertical pole. That's also why the flag is not "blowing valiantly in the wind" there's no wind. De De Dee. You all make me sick.
MrHobo63 5 years ago
Why do hoaxers ask us to believe mankind can launch a 365 foot rocket into orbit, on 6.5 million pounds of thrust, perfect every time, in front of billions of watchers, but you cannot believe NASA can re-light a single small 3rd stage engine to send the CSM/LM into a circumlunar orbit?
glcanon 5 years ago
Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake, Fake
frankthemonkey 5 years ago
i just dont understand why anybody would think we dint't go to the moon...those ppl make me sick
Jeroenske 5 years ago
A lot of people have hoax believers lumped together. Thats very unfair. There is a large segment who believes we went there, but the footage was faked and others who believe we didnt go at all & still more that think we went but in the 70's not in 69. You should perhaps consider that when you are writing comments like this. If you wanna know why ppl would think this do some research.
Search YT: moon hoax conspiracy lunar landings and look at whats out there,like my vid cameraman on he moon.
anon1104 5 years ago
Great song. Here's the lyrics
If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon. If you believe theres nothing up their sleeve, then nothing is cool.
eric144144 5 years ago
alright enough about the moon landing that its fake. it is really not fake indeed. now i for one is a chinese and im really ashamed of you americans that think its fake. i just know that the reason the flag was waving is because they tied a string to the pole so that someone would pull it to make the flag wave. Then neil armstrong saluted. it resembles something heroic i think lol.
celticguards 5 years ago
America's greatest achievement. Plain and simple.
And for the conspiracy theorists out there, get a life!
beedebee 5 years ago
I watched a tv show with the proof of it's fake. Watch the moon sand as the ATV drives. If it was for real ther dust would keep on floating but instead it landed right back on the ground. Gravity
kirkbakken 5 years ago
Thats because without the air to let it float around it would fall down more easily thats now proof against it thats proof FOR it.
DTanza 5 years ago
i CANT STAND the idiots that say that the moon missions were faked if that is true then where did that huge rocket go wallmart?
louisM123 5 years ago
I watched a tv show with the proof of it's fake. Watch the moon sand as the ATV drives. If it was for real ther dust would keep on floating but instead it landed right back on the ground. Gravity
kirkbakken 5 years ago
of course it lands. Luckily gravity is not restricted to the earth.
drnumlock 5 years ago
Excellent video. Aren't they planning two missions right now? One to go back to the moon with-in the next ten years and the other a manned mission to Mars by 2020.
baird242 5 years ago
Baird it`s not to Mars in 2020 it`s to the moon in 2020
DTanza 5 years ago
And to those who say.
"If we went to the moon before why don`t we do it again?"
It`s because we are trying to study Mars right now and plan a mission there.
Of course that one you will say is fake too...
DTanza 5 years ago
Actually nasa does want to do it again, and even have plans in the making for another moon trip.
the question is funding- that's what killed the apollo program.
Lightcycle 5 years ago
Yeah I know about the next moon misson but i`m talking about the other people who are sticking their butt`s in their mouths.
DTanza 5 years ago
Cool.. think you might want to know this then... they just tested the last set of rocket engines of the design that has been used the last 30 yrs.... so they are designing new engines, that are supposed to eventually be used on a new shuttle design that will go to the moon.
Lightcycle 5 years ago
Wow now THATS cool thats for letting me know!
DTanza 5 years ago
We have electrogravitics technology at Indian Springs, NV that is fuelless, non-polluting, all-electric, and silent. The space program you see funded by the Govt is all a huge show and public-relations COVERUP, like Project Blue Book! Dr. Cain at NASA worked with John Searl, and his high-Voltage flying saucer prototypes, and the P-11 was tested in 1977 at Edwards in Calif. We are being lied to.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
If we do- cool and great. But until there some decent evidence the belief for such is going to be on the shelf.
ANd yes the Airforce at least has flying saucers- altho none with extraterrestrial technology. They had at least 2 saucershaped test vehicles - one known as the flying pancake in some circles, and the other was to be an advanced aircraft cpable of delivering nuclear weapons.
Lightcycle 4 years ago
Read: THE US ANTIGRAVITY SQUADRON, by Tom Valone, PhD. I was at COFE II last September in Washington DC.
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
But we have uncounted billions to spend on invading countries, and war and killing and putting good people in harms way. Private industry has the key. go to searleffect dot com
Beamshipcaptain 4 years ago
Not official money as that can be accounted for - and every or almost every branch of the gov is usually requesting more than they get.
if there are billions of unaccounteed money (maybe in the private secotrs?) the majority of the various branches of the government don't feel any influence from it.
Lightcycle 4 years ago
Well if you think about it it's not that hard to see that we could go to the moon- during that time the SR 71 was developed... and no other jet aircraft has yet to go faster or has been able to beat it... even with todays technology.
Lightcycle 5 years ago
Well you can make a faster one with today's technology, there's just no reason to.
mustang6172 5 years ago
Great video we did go to the moon.
DTanza 5 years ago
Simply amazing!!! Done with 60's technology...incredible!!! When will we return? Who knows. Just imagine how expensive it will be now!!! Probably have to sub it out to China. Hoaxers...get out of the trailer! WTG Reg! LOLOLOL! Thanks for the video Xfile.
LindaStevensBZ 5 years ago
Wonderful. A good total picture of the event! I am an Apollo 11 fan having won a record album of the event. Thanks for posting this!
JugglingTed 5 years ago
Thank you.
SanMarinoStudios 5 years ago
Personally I think faking the moon landing would've been a more elaborate and costly feat than actually going there (which I am certain they did). There'll always be the armchair conspiracy experts who discount the moon landing because "hey, how could that flag have fluttered if there was no air?" and other such faulty pseudoscientific logic. Just have to remember that those people are a tiny minority of stooges and they rarely leave their trailers anyway...
reginbert 5 years ago 2
Yes its a great short presentation of the most memerable parts of the Apollo 11 trip to the Moon. There is no way it is fake, every conspiracy theory has been debunked and there isn't one out there that I know of which I cannot debunk. I will keep looking and I hope that those who don't belive will look for the supporting evidence behind the theorist claims and that they look at both sides and see how the heaviest side out weighs the other on all counts, and that is the moon landing happened.
yadsik 5 years ago