You have to love how Apollo worshipers, start out really cocky, argue with confidence like they have all the answers, and then just disappear when confronted with facts.
sorry bout that i was referring to any exposure to radiation outside of our earths magnetic shield so yea I guess solar flares are what Im talking about. So the suits are made from advanced fibers made out of what exactly (to shield us from radiation)? I dont quite get the that solar waves sweep out past our solar system? Im interested in that. Thanks man
Final answer to leave no questions behind: Nobody has gone to the moon. Americans were annoyed that US was spending so much money on this research and 'travelling' and they came up with nothing. US made these fake pictures. Like, it's a no-brainer, The government has more secrets, keeping from the public then you can imagine folks.
we made it or not we have the technology and we have ways to make it to the moon i don't even understand why people are trying to make a great argument on this.
my co-workers and I have this discussion often. PLain and simple if you do not believe it; no matter what people show to disprove the skeptics there is always something else that will convince them otherwise
Not going to claim that the moon landing was faked when I dont know much about the subject. But using a city night sky and claiming that even then you dont see stars. Of course not, anyone that lives in any city knows cause of the city lights stars are barely visible.
@albertosol1977 Actually try seeing stars in broad daylight, hard isn't it? The Apollo missions landed on the day side of the moon with sunlight directly reflecting off the surface.
@Spindry96 I hope your messing with us haha if not then standing directly in sunlight without an atmosphere or any magnetic shield...wearing nothing but a suit made of aluminum fiber and silicon rubber is a joke. Im pretty sure here on earth we wear lead vests when taking x rays
@SmirtDocter The space suit has 11 or more layers alowing it to shield against ultraviolet radiation, limited particle radiation, micrometeoroids, temperatures ranging from -156c to 121c. What xrays are you talking about anyway?? Did you not know the magnetic solar waves from the sun sweep out past our solar system grealy reducing the strength of galactic radiation. Solar flares? Yes they are dangerous but the flights were planned and flew in between solar flare activity. Anything else?
@Spindry96 Are you are saying that in 1969 these suits with their 11 layers would protect the astronauts outside the magnetic field? If these suits work well enough to survive the van allen radiation belt, why (42 years later) hasn't this fabulous technology been put to use? Why are Fukushima workers dying from radiation? Are you also saying that there is a way to predict solar flares? Not likely to get a lot of physicists to back you up on that one, maybe a period of less but nothing more.
@nas0ng Scientists can and do predict solar flare activity. In December they predicted major activity and were off only by 13 minutes. It's incorrect to compare radiation in space to the same intensity as at a nuclear plant meltdown. Astronauts spending weeks in space may only recieve the equilivant radiation of a nuclear power plant worker working for one year. Hardly fatal
@Spindry96 In December? We are talking about 42 years ago. Further more most sources have the Van Allen Radiation Belt as 8 rads per hour and Fukishima disaster at 11 rads per hour. There is a difference but it is this one is lethal the other is SEVERE radiation sickness.
@nas0ng Sure 42 years ago their computers to analyise data was much slower and inaccurate but they could still predict major activity allowing them safe windows of time to fly. Sattelites absorb around 2500 rem a year passing through the belts thats about 6.84 rem a day. It takes 500 rem to outright kill someone. The Apollo craft would have to remain in the belts for 13,888,000 hours to get an 500 rem dose
@Spindry96 You say there is a difference between nuclear disasters (Fukishima) and space travel, which there isn't. Then you compare a sattelite (satellite), with comparatively low absorption rate, to a human. The 13,000,000+ hours for the craft possibly, the people inside it, no. The vast majority of satellites inside the magnetosphere precisely because they can not handle the radiation.
@nas0ng As l said the radiation level at a nuclear meltdown is much much greater than in space. As l said satelites absorb 2500 rem a year passing through the belts. The Apollo space crafts passing through the belts took around 4 hours, not all of that time was in the more intense radiation areas. Four hours at that dosage or less is insignificant.
@Spindry96 Van Allen 8 rem to 1000 rem/hr. Fukishima disaster 10 rem/hr. The maximum allowable radiation dose for radiation workers is 5 Rem/year with a 250 Rem allowable career exposure. Four hours out, four hours back in VAB 64 rem. Open space radiation is also exponentially greater outside the magnetosphere. Total exposure time of 168 hours for a11. With say 1.7 rem/hr for the remainder is 272+64=336 rem. That is a best case.
@Spindry96 So in 7 days these pilots were exposed to more than a safe dosage than a typical nuclear worker in an antire life time. And three went twice for an exposer of (minimum) 672 rem. You can't seriously be telling me that you think they didn't get severe radiation sickness.
@nas0ng 1000 rem an hour in the belts? Not even close. The Apollo crew recorded recieving less radiation than a normal person recieves in a year. The only harm incured was some of them reported early onset of cataracts. Solar flares aside our solar system isn't the radiation death sentence that you imagine if exposure time is limited.
@Spindry96 Ok your right and MIT is wrong. 1000 rem is easily attainable during a flare which in 1969 was not predictable in any way. They just figured out how to predict them 2 days out in 2010. Even if they could do this back then, it wouldn't help a bit on a 7 day mission. Furthermore, I said, "severe radiation sickness." You are the only one who has said, "death sentence."
@Spindry96 But since you brought it up: Former astronaut Mike Lounge has died from liver cancer. Jack Swigert died of cancer in 1982. He was the Command Module Pilot of Apollo 13. Donald Slayton died 13 June, 1993 from brain cancer. Three time NASA Shuttle astronaut David Low died of colon cancer. But none of the two trip lunar astronauts have had any radiation related sickness?
@nas0ng We can only speculate if their short time in space contributerd to their cancers later in life, we all know many people who have had cancer and they were never in space. The only thing they noticed at the time was on occasion light flashes behind their eyes from cosmic radiation. Still this is not radiation sickness. Yes a solar flare would be dangerous to crew and equipment but can be avoided on short trips. A trip to Mars they would not be able to be avoided
@Spindry96 It can be avoided on trip shorter than 4 days round trip now, and that is only in the last two years. The moon is a 7 day round trip. So it is still out of reach of safety.
@nas0ng A search found these figures for radiation exposure. Apollo 11 173 millirads (100 millirads = 0.1 rad), Shuttle 433 up to 7,864, Skylab 2500 up to 17,800. Airline flight crew 200 per year, CT Scan 700.
@nas0ng If they were so good at predicting these things why go up at all in 1969? Check out the chart of solar activity on this page science•nasa•gov//science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/ and find 1969.
See the problem is your not recognizing the issue. 1.) In 1969 NASA could not accurately predict solar flares at all (NOAA/NASA press release in 2010 declared finally being able to predict them 2 days in advance). With a 7 day round trip there would be no way for astronauts to return to safety should a solar flare occur. And it did...
@nas0ng 2.) Per NASA's website "1964 for solar minimum and 1970 for solar maximum" 3.) also per NASA " At solar maximum the average rate was as high as 20 per day" Per
"A survey of Radiation Hazards & Shields for Space Craft & Habitats" from the INSTITUTE FOR NUCLEAR THEORY [in all caps because I copied and pasted not trying to yell ; )] "Solar flare: 100s-1000s rem."
@thatmrdudeman Seems that way, but try to use google maps to view a flag pole and flag. Unfortunately, the only way to get a close enough view of the moon is to go there, which NASA has a monopoly on so it is either trust them or don't. Although many say the evidence for Apollo 11 is "overwhelming" I have yet to see it and I want it to be true.
I bet that more than half of the people who refute the moon landings believe in God. Catch my drift? If not, let me explain. They do not believe in something that is provable, but they do believe in something that is not provable. Anybody got some Tylenol?
@rherbert57 I am a devout atheist, raised by two atheist. They provided me with every religious text available and let me make my own decision. So I believe in the evidence as much as I would like to believe otherwise. It is silly to compare believers with skeptics as normally skeptics are what they are while believers are what they are as well.
@LunarTuner 1) there are plenty of examples of extremely dark shadows on the moons surface under rocks the shadow of the lander etc 2) Really? I find it difficult to believe there wouldn't be an opportunity to sneak something up during the "space race." There ARE records of at least a dozen unmanned missions to the moon prior to A-11. Six of which made it to the lunar surface with at least two landings with manned & umanned missions in orbit for roughly 6 months.
Per cornell university "The lunar maria are: dark lavas inside volcanic calderas," google dark lava if your confused. I know what a retroreflector is/does, but thank you for the detailed description, that has nothing to do with how it got there. Your "answer" to my question is nothing if not ostrich like in it's avoidance of any other possibility.
Somehow I am missing the "PROOF." Ok the shadow, flag and star arguments are dumb. So this video only addresses the dumb questions? My only arguments with this video are: The suit shadow: Light reflecting off the surface of yellow sand sure, but a black basalt like material that would have been present at the first landing site? The reflector: There isn't any other possible explanation as to how something reflective got on the surface of the moon other than two human hands placing it there?
@nas0ng, I don't know how "black" you think lunar regolith is in the Sea of Tranquility, but through my telescope it's not too black. Describing a retroreflector as "something reflective" suggest you have no idea what it does. A luanar laser ranger can shine a photon beam directly at it from Tokyo & get returns 180 directly back. Another guy can do it from France and it will do the same thing. Try that with a mirror or any old "something reflective". There's no other record of how it got there.
@LunarTuner Although your response didn't really address any of my issues and had little or no argumentative value it did lead me to a search, and subsequently an interesting video...watch?v=hc7jIg7j544. Just to clarify my position I believe man has landed on the moon. However, I have serious doubts about Apollo 11. This video is far closer to "PROOF" than the tired, silly and safe video above (though admittedly the math makes no sense to me so it could be hot air too).
@nas0ng, My point was that 1) the lunar surface is enough reflective to fill a shadow (shown every full moon when the moon's reflectivity fills the shadow of earth's night) & 2) One could theoretically put an object on the moon using an unmanned craft, but not w/o the launch being detected. There's no record of any other launch than A-11 & no record of design, test or manufacture of any unmanned craft.
True, anything blisterhiker creates is quality. Listening to him is recommended.
@LunarTuner Just in case the previous comment was unclear...The 12+ unmanned lunar missions, that predated Apollo 11, were Soviet missions (and yes all 12 were to the moons surface). This doesn't include pre A-11 unmanned US space exploration (U.S. Ranger 7, Ranger 9, etc). The existence of retroreflectors on the moon is proof only of a soft landing, not a manned soft landing. All of the Soviet retroreflectors were placed in unmanned missions. So again original questions stand.
@nas0ng, Do any of the Ranger spacecraft have the capability of deploying a retro or is there any record whatsoever of a device? If not, you're merely offering conjecture. It's imaginative, but that's all. On the other hand, the evidence for A11 doesn't start or stop with the retros. Listing the rest of such such evidence is not even possible here.
Not all shadows are equal, but if the moon can light my backyard from 240,000 miles, imagine what it can do to a white, Nylon suit on the surface.
@LunarTuner No is is not conjecture, it is an argument and a valid one. You chose to comment on my opinion that this video has no "PROOF" and have yet to provide anything to the contrary.
1.) There are records of design, test and manufacture of unmanned craft.
2.) There are plenty of examples of dark shadows in other lunar footage.
3.) Your backyard, your telescope and your list of other evidence isn't applicable to this conversation.
Valid point or pick another video and I will see you there
@nas0ng, It's conjecture, since you offer no records of design, test or manufacture of the unmanned craft you IMAGINED. I never claimed this video was PROOF of anything, but Apollo has offered EVIDENCE that is overwhelming & has stood up against countless ill-conceived objections.
A shadow's darkness in photography is effected by exposure settings.
Fine, use someone else's backyard or telescope. You'll find that the moon's reflection can cause its own shadows, even from 240,000 miles away!
@LunarTuner Seriously? Hmm, So it is your position that there is, "no records of design, test or manufacture of," an unmanned craft that was capable of landing on the moon, let alone one that actually did prior to July 20, 1969?
@LunarTuner As to the rest of your last comment to increase exposer to eliminate shadows would white wash the entire photo in the extremely bright reflective environment that you describe...even though A-11 landed in a dark basalt like environment.
And I don't care if your looking at the moon through the Gran Telescopio Canarias it has no bearing on the actual experience of being on the moon and how a camera would work.
@nas0ng, how ironic that you're telling me the composition of the regolith of the Sea of Tranquility when we know it because of the samples taken by A-11 and other Apollo missions. Sorry, but the moon is definitely reflective. If it were not, you would not see shadow on earth at night during a full moon. It doesn't become LESS reflective when you get close to it. An exposure taken from earth (say a.5.6 at 1/125 second using 100 OSI film) wouldn't change at all when you got on the surface.
@LunarTuner So it is your position that there is, "no records of design, test or manufacture of," an unmanned craft that was capable of landing on the moon, let alone one that actually did prior to July 20, 1969?
@nas0ng, No. You misunderstood me. Read carefully.
There is "no records of design, test or manufacture of" THE unmanned craft which you allege deployed the retroreflectors at the Apollos 11, 14 & 15 sites.
I'm challenging you to show me SPECIFIC records of the SPECIFIC US spacecraft you claim may have been launched and had the capability to deploy a retroreflector.
@LunarTuner Ok as to the reflectivity issue. All matter is reflective to one degree or another especially when the Sun is shining on it. You admit that we know the composition of any maria is a dark volcanic rock which has extremely low reflectivity and take the entire moon as a whole (much of which is a very light gray, almost white) and use the shadow the entirety casts in your back yard as proof the the maria is equally as reflective? Preposterous.
@nas0ng, but reflective enough to fill in some shadows? Absolutely! In addition, an astronaut taking a photo of the shadow-side of another astronaut is himself, very reflective. In fact, his suit is designed to be as reflective as possible to dissipate heat. So is the LM. In fact, even the earth in the sky is reflecting light back to the moon. There is plenty of light to keep a shadow on the moon from being completely black. "Completely black" in this instance could not possibly exist.
@LunarTuner The video compares the reflectivity of a yellow sand desert to the black lunar sands. This video implies it debunked a conspiracy theory when it didn't. The image under debate hasn't one shadow. The only explanation for this is very very little light and very little reflected light with a very long exposer. Which is reasonable considering he is in the shadow of the LM in a dark maria, but that is not the argument you or this video made. Just ignoring my other comment?
@LunarTuner I am referring to the astronaut in frames 0:21 to 0:29 of this video...so Aldrin. He is clearly not in direct light. If A-11 is in question, so is associated video/transcripts/NASA's story etc. So once again let us stick to the merits of this video any arguments pertaining to either the retros or the shadows in this video, or since their are hundreds of other videos select another and I will watch and comment. Still ignoring my comment "1st off I am the skeptic..."?
People want to believe in conspiracies because they want to believe there are people in this world smart enough and powerful enough to control the world. They do not want to believe this world is run by the people that appear to be in power, or no one, and that this world is out of control. People who try to perpetuate conspiracies are just playing mind games while wasting their time and real opportunities. Go to TruthContest(dot)com, open The Present, and read what it says to learn the truth.
In order to even remotely fake just the moonwalk you would need an extremely huge transparent vacuum chamber, and if you filmed the astronauts inside such a chamber then scientists would easily be able to see reflections of the cameramen - and even if it would've been possible to avoid reflections it would be too risky to attempt that anyway, plus you would still need to make the lift-offs and journeys to the moon seem 100% real.
@enchizitia Where`s your proof for this statement.James Van Allen(whom the radioactive Van Allen Belts are named after) went on record repeatedly to say that the belts would not be deadly to apollo.I would expect him to know his subject!
well how in the hell does the flag WAVE around like theres wind....FYI there is no wind in gravity......EPIC FAIL and if we really did go to the moon than why havent we went back with technology now a days its like going up a escalator
Couldn't Write everything here is another question....Astronauts recorded themselves walking the moon....1 day later and 2 miles later the terrain is identical to the day before...rocks in same postition everything the same. Another photo depicts the lunar lander and the background shows mountains...another picture from a different landing shows the exact same mountains in the background...but no lunar lander...hmm something to think about.
Where is the blast crater from the landing? Neil describes the surface of the moon like a powder how are astronauts footprints still in place after lunar landings if the thrust would blow dust around the surface? The noise level of a rocket is in the 140-150dB range....so when Neil was landing this LEM how could you hear his voice so clearly? I've been doing some research on this subject but i'm not completely convinced that we did or didn't land...if anyone can answer these questions please do.
i think that the greatest clue that confirms the moon landings is that thousands of people were involved in them. Not only the pilots but the mission control, engineers, physicists, mathematicians, military men, etc. How can so many people preserve such a huge secret for such a long time? And why didn't the Soviets prove the landing wrong? That would have given the Soviets an advantage in the space race. EDUCATE YOURSELVES!!!!
An ultraviolet telescope was taken to the lunar surface on Apollo 16 and operated in the shadow of the lunar module. It captured pictures of the earth and of many stars, some of which are dim in visible light but bright in the ultraviolet. These observations were later matched up with observations taken by orbiting ultraviolet telescopes. Furthermore, the positions of those stars with respect to the earth are correct for the time and location of the Apollo 16 photographs. Hoaxturds are fools
@MrTabby5000, that's a theory, but you can't back it up. No unmanned spacecraft was launched at that time and if it was, it would have been detected by every nuclear power. There is no record of any kind of any such robotic craft and no single person has given testimony to such or shown a document, photo or anything. On the other hand, we have documentation, photos and film of the retroreflectors being placed and aligned.
Okay, let's say that you're right and the United States never went to the moon and NASA faked the whole thing; they devised these elaborate frauds to fool the world to the benefit of the United States. Are you then assuming that they concluded that no nation could ever go to the moon to prove that NASA lied? Unmanned landings could also prove that the landing were faked; the ensuing disgrace far out weighs the stated reasons for perpetuating the fraud. Otherwise, please explain.
@daurigl look up a movie called Capricorn One made in 1971, 2 year after the moon landing . Its about the USA faking landing on mars...sort of mocking the moon landing watch how good they are at making it look and similar the the lunar landing on the moon....they had a 4.2 million dollar budget. NASA had a 4 Billion dollar budget so it could have very well been faked.
@3rdCoastBeatzTV Oh, I believe that NASA could fake a moon landing if it wanted, but there has to be a credible motive for them to do so. For NASA to commit this fraud they would first have to conclude that it could not be detected throughout the course of history. This seems like a very unreal expectation. When proven fake, any momentary sense or recognition of accomplishment would be forever stained by the disgrace of lying to the world. Think of the ramifications; is it worth the lie?
@daurigl I'm not saying we didn't go to the moon just looking at some of the facts...but this was during the cold war and USA wanted to be #1...our government is crooked and you should no this by the stuff you see around...all the secrets that they don't tell us...I hope that we did really go to the moon...but if we didn't the truth will surface one day.
the Human race is far more capable of great things than the moon landing. They have not hoaxed it. There are secret technologies, secret powers and knowledge of the unknown that have been kept secret from the public. The human race is capable of technologies that would look like alien technology to the normal person. The human race is capable of much more. Humans are a young but knowledgeable race, and will continue knowledgable but they will only be smart when they don't have anymore secrets.
well like it or not! either man walked on the moon-or we fired a small system up there to place a laser connections! the proof is here: so whatever! i just wished we would go to the moon again! :)
it is impossible for us to have been on the moon for one the Van Allen Radiation belts will kill ANY and ALL living things in that flying tin can. also Think about this: to date, only three countries have been able to put a man merely in Earth orbit – the United States, Russia, and China. There is a big difference between 240,000 miles and 400 miles. Why can’t anyone make it more than 400 miles from Earth today if we could make a 480,000 mile round trip in 1969? something smells fishy...
@Neoclassicalman, No physicist believes that. 1967, the USSR put 2 dogs into the VAB (Kosmos 110) for 23 days! Came back alive! The ISS flies through the Southern Atlantic Anomaly part of the VAB several times a day. No one dies. The USSR sent a turtle, flies & worms through the VAB on Zond 5. They lived. Apollo only went through the VAB for less than 2 hours. Why was the fastest plane flight in '76? Why no supersonic airliner now? Why don't we go back to the Mariana Trench since 1960?
yes you can survive the van allen belts They used armor (you don’t need 6 ft of lead) and only spent 4 hours in the Van Allen Belt. "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen" par of my exit project
@billy918237 you watched a show on fox...... learn something about the "ship" and "lander" they used it had to be as light as possible to "make it there and back". are you dumb enough to think you can travel 240,000 kms in a couple hours? with a jet thruster engine? if you actually believe that i question your intelligence
@Neoclassicalman you dont know anything about physics do you? in space of course you can go that fast out in space it is easy! and they didnt use jet thrusters, jets have to have oxygen to work, rockets dont, plus you have very little resistance against you so you can go as fast as you can in space, and on the moon it is 1/6th the gravity here on earth so the objects and stuff will be lighter anyway.
@Neoclassicalman no it will not kill anything or whatever u said, and 2nd if NASA didnt want you to know they hoaxed the moon landing (which they didnt) then why would they release information about that radiation ring that would "kill anything" that goes through it?! that just doenst make sense.
How about the experiment where one of the astronauts (cant remember which) dropped the hammer and the feather at the same time and they reached the ground simultaneously. That is pretty solid proof since that can only occur in a vacuum
Some1 needs to point a powerfull telescope a the moon and see if the flag or moon buggy is there. China was going to send a rocket to the moon in 2009 to map the moons surface. That hasn't happened, maybe the yanks asked the chinks not to. The only way to know for sure is a telescope :-D
@WeeWeiners sorry, my dad wrote that, using MY account, even I the one who is 27 years younger than him, knows that, but he says radiation can go through 6 feet of steel, is that true?
Still? Jack White is one of those 'experts' searching for 'troof'. He's a nutcase. Said that it was impossible for LRO to see parts of the LM on the surface of the Moon, because (as he said) "the astronauts left the Moon with the LM".
"I don't believe it anymore"
Something like: "I don't think that water is wet."
@blablablablablablaHA -- The only thing I have ever seen that even looked anything like a "shining wire"was in a video that was such poor quality that there were "ghost" images of the astronauts and pixelated motion all over the entire background. A higher quality version of that same video has nothing that looks like "wires." And none of the other videos show any actual "wires."
why nobody said nothing about the blast or the noise of the engine or the fake pictures?? the proof that no man has landed on the moon is that lately years nobody land on the moon cos the techonology now cant create fake landings and make fools out of all mankind
i find it funny that most people who don't believe we landed on the moon also believe that ufo's visit earth. It's fun to see how scientific these people really are... they do NO research. Even if the government was corrupt and horrible, scientists would still be able to prove if people landed on the moon. I'm pretty sure Russia and China would've investigated it pretty well and they didn't seem to call the moon landing fake. (except for the minorities)
why are there so many people who have no faith in scientists. This makes me sad when scientists are really the only people in the world we can trust for truth ):
hahahaha how desperate are people when they start saying that we didnt land on the moon.... No matter what is done there will always be a pocket of people to try and dispute reality.
@nasafakedit Nice troll account. I am assuming it is a troll account, because I would like to think that nobody is that dumb!
The one question a conspiracy theorist can never answer is, if the landing was faked and it is so obvious to you, then why didn't the Russians expose the fake and proceed with their moon landing mission? They tracked the Apollo module the whole way there and back. If anyone had proof the landing was faked, it would be the Russians. So why protect their enemies?
Search for this on youtube Man didnt land on the moon part 1 (watch part 1-5) thats enough proofs to say that this is fake. really good job of them to pull it of tough
your a dumbass, not too long ago japan not nasa, did a high resolution scan of the moon's entire surface where the lunar platforms left behind are clearly visible.
@KILLERGAMER1111 ok chill out man dont get all defensive i have a freedom of speech aswell you know.. and whats me being from a diffrent country (Australia) got too do with anything? The only evidence you have of man being on the moon is the media and so do I...
@ptraiders40 Your all just sheep god dam i cbf typing this out youll see in the next 50 years all the lies that our government aint telling us the curtain that is put infront of our eyes a prison for our mind...
@fear946, Virtually every aerospace engineer, astronomer and astrophysicist in the world "falls for this." Can you explain why we should listen to you instead of them?
@fear946, There has to be a compelling reason to spend 100s of Billions of taxpayer dollars to go back to the moon. The only clear reason would be to establish a permanent base and that would be much, much, much more difficult and expensive. Long-duration space habitation still needs some study. We could go, but the reason has to be clear.
@fear946, If you want me to explain what Obama EVER means, I am afraid you are asking too much. To my knowledge, Obama is not budgeting for a mission to mars...he has merely suggested it as an eventual goal by 2030. His budget does not suggest anything specific, but only 6 billion more for NASA over the next 5 years....whoodeedoo! I don't defend Obama's plan. He speaks for himself. All I'm saying is that going to the moon again has to have a compelling reason. If not, why go again?
The first person to land on the moon... was Neil Armstrong....so..when he took that first step...it was recorded outside of the ship..WHO THE FUK WAS RECORDING?!?
@eNARV1, Neil Armstrong's first steps were transmitted live to earth from a camera that was mounted in the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly. This cabinet to the left of the ladder was deployed by Armstrong by pulling a handle at the top of the ladder before he came down. He confirmed that it was on and then came down. The camera was "pre-aimed" on earth. This question has been asked millions of times. I think NASA was on top ot this one ;)
"Who was taking the picture"...well eNARV, we could tell you but we won't, becuase that question has been answered so many times only a brain dead sack of greasy leftover assfuckings would ask so you are obviously too retarded to understand.
@TheJomogogo you can actually be nice and couldve told me but i gues your too much of an asshole and dick and i can tell that your family doesnt love you and have no friends.
I am never nice to people who think the Apollo landings were faked, they are pathetic assholes that deserve to be treated like the shit wits they are.
Faking the manned landings on the moon and keeping it a secret would have been the most monumental accomplishment in human history. Instead, we just actually went to the moon, took film, thousands of photos, collected over 800 lbs. of lunar samples, were watched and tracked by the Soviets and left retroreflectors as proof we were there. That was MUCH easier!
@Jordache22222 one of the biggest achievements you THINK, the government is fooling all of you. They had the real astronauts that knew the reality murdered accusing it as an accident. Why do you think they have area 51?? The only rotated around the world and claimed to have been to the moon. I love my country, but the government, sorry it's nothing but a word meaning secretary bullshit!
@44flako If you like your country, finish a college, learn math, learn physics, learn geography, learn history. Then, with enough knowledge on board you can judge your government more appropriately and see the world with wiser eyes, don't rely on Internet and Mass media.
You have to love how Apollo worshipers, start out really cocky, argue with confidence like they have all the answers, and then just disappear when confronted with facts.
nas0ng 2 days ago
WHY HASN'T MAN BEEN ON THE MOON SINCE THEN?!?
patrickpoo 1 month ago
@patrickpoo haha they have
TheCuzzShow 1 month ago
@TheCuzzShow who?
patrickpoo 1 month ago
@patrickpoo ever heard of the other apollo missions?
45678ret 2 weeks ago
@patrickpoo Because the last few generations have been pussy's and retards.
gnr2k11forever 1 month ago
sorry bout that i was referring to any exposure to radiation outside of our earths magnetic shield so yea I guess solar flares are what Im talking about. So the suits are made from advanced fibers made out of what exactly (to shield us from radiation)? I dont quite get the that solar waves sweep out past our solar system? Im interested in that. Thanks man
SmirtDocter 2 months ago
LYING BASTARDS
206JUDAH 3 months ago
@206JUDAH who?
gnr2k11forever 1 month ago
Final answer to leave no questions behind: Nobody has gone to the moon. Americans were annoyed that US was spending so much money on this research and 'travelling' and they came up with nothing. US made these fake pictures. Like, it's a no-brainer, The government has more secrets, keeping from the public then you can imagine folks.
Crazyyn00b 4 months ago
we made it or not we have the technology and we have ways to make it to the moon i don't even understand why people are trying to make a great argument on this.
monsterchew554 4 months ago
my co-workers and I have this discussion often. PLain and simple if you do not believe it; no matter what people show to disprove the skeptics there is always something else that will convince them otherwise
sirtubemaster 4 months ago
FFFFFAAAAAAKKKKKKEEEEE
ThePetko4 4 months ago
Not going to claim that the moon landing was faked when I dont know much about the subject. But using a city night sky and claiming that even then you dont see stars. Of course not, anyone that lives in any city knows cause of the city lights stars are barely visible.
albertosol1977 5 months ago
@albertosol1977 cant tell if trolling....
they mean from the moon videos, you cant see stars.
this is because we didnt have good recording devices back then.
shoshanish 4 months ago
@albertosol1977 Actually try seeing stars in broad daylight, hard isn't it? The Apollo missions landed on the day side of the moon with sunlight directly reflecting off the surface.
Spindry96 4 months ago
@Spindry96 I hope your messing with us haha if not then standing directly in sunlight without an atmosphere or any magnetic shield...wearing nothing but a suit made of aluminum fiber and silicon rubber is a joke. Im pretty sure here on earth we wear lead vests when taking x rays
SmirtDocter 2 months ago 2
@SmirtDocter The space suit has 11 or more layers alowing it to shield against ultraviolet radiation, limited particle radiation, micrometeoroids, temperatures ranging from -156c to 121c. What xrays are you talking about anyway?? Did you not know the magnetic solar waves from the sun sweep out past our solar system grealy reducing the strength of galactic radiation. Solar flares? Yes they are dangerous but the flights were planned and flew in between solar flare activity. Anything else?
Spindry96 2 months ago
@Spindry96 Are you are saying that in 1969 these suits with their 11 layers would protect the astronauts outside the magnetic field? If these suits work well enough to survive the van allen radiation belt, why (42 years later) hasn't this fabulous technology been put to use? Why are Fukushima workers dying from radiation? Are you also saying that there is a way to predict solar flares? Not likely to get a lot of physicists to back you up on that one, maybe a period of less but nothing more.
nas0ng 6 days ago
@nas0ng Scientists can and do predict solar flare activity. In December they predicted major activity and were off only by 13 minutes. It's incorrect to compare radiation in space to the same intensity as at a nuclear plant meltdown. Astronauts spending weeks in space may only recieve the equilivant radiation of a nuclear power plant worker working for one year. Hardly fatal
Spindry96 6 days ago
@Spindry96 In December? We are talking about 42 years ago. Further more most sources have the Van Allen Radiation Belt as 8 rads per hour and Fukishima disaster at 11 rads per hour. There is a difference but it is this one is lethal the other is SEVERE radiation sickness.
nas0ng 6 days ago
@nas0ng Sure 42 years ago their computers to analyise data was much slower and inaccurate but they could still predict major activity allowing them safe windows of time to fly. Sattelites absorb around 2500 rem a year passing through the belts thats about 6.84 rem a day. It takes 500 rem to outright kill someone. The Apollo craft would have to remain in the belts for 13,888,000 hours to get an 500 rem dose
Spindry96 6 days ago
@Spindry96 You say there is a difference between nuclear disasters (Fukishima) and space travel, which there isn't. Then you compare a sattelite (satellite), with comparatively low absorption rate, to a human. The 13,000,000+ hours for the craft possibly, the people inside it, no. The vast majority of satellites inside the magnetosphere precisely because they can not handle the radiation.
nas0ng 6 days ago
@nas0ng As l said the radiation level at a nuclear meltdown is much much greater than in space. As l said satelites absorb 2500 rem a year passing through the belts. The Apollo space crafts passing through the belts took around 4 hours, not all of that time was in the more intense radiation areas. Four hours at that dosage or less is insignificant.
Spindry96 6 days ago
@Spindry96 Van Allen 8 rem to 1000 rem/hr. Fukishima disaster 10 rem/hr. The maximum allowable radiation dose for radiation workers is 5 Rem/year with a 250 Rem allowable career exposure. Four hours out, four hours back in VAB 64 rem. Open space radiation is also exponentially greater outside the magnetosphere. Total exposure time of 168 hours for a11. With say 1.7 rem/hr for the remainder is 272+64=336 rem. That is a best case.
nas0ng 6 days ago
@Spindry96 So in 7 days these pilots were exposed to more than a safe dosage than a typical nuclear worker in an antire life time. And three went twice for an exposer of (minimum) 672 rem. You can't seriously be telling me that you think they didn't get severe radiation sickness.
nas0ng 6 days ago
@nas0ng 1000 rem an hour in the belts? Not even close. The Apollo crew recorded recieving less radiation than a normal person recieves in a year. The only harm incured was some of them reported early onset of cataracts. Solar flares aside our solar system isn't the radiation death sentence that you imagine if exposure time is limited.
Spindry96 6 days ago
@Spindry96 Ok your right and MIT is wrong. 1000 rem is easily attainable during a flare which in 1969 was not predictable in any way. They just figured out how to predict them 2 days out in 2010. Even if they could do this back then, it wouldn't help a bit on a 7 day mission. Furthermore, I said, "severe radiation sickness." You are the only one who has said, "death sentence."
nas0ng 6 days ago
@Spindry96 But since you brought it up: Former astronaut Mike Lounge has died from liver cancer. Jack Swigert died of cancer in 1982. He was the Command Module Pilot of Apollo 13. Donald Slayton died 13 June, 1993 from brain cancer. Three time NASA Shuttle astronaut David Low died of colon cancer. But none of the two trip lunar astronauts have had any radiation related sickness?
nas0ng 6 days ago
@nas0ng We can only speculate if their short time in space contributerd to their cancers later in life, we all know many people who have had cancer and they were never in space. The only thing they noticed at the time was on occasion light flashes behind their eyes from cosmic radiation. Still this is not radiation sickness. Yes a solar flare would be dangerous to crew and equipment but can be avoided on short trips. A trip to Mars they would not be able to be avoided
Spindry96 5 days ago
@Spindry96 It can be avoided on trip shorter than 4 days round trip now, and that is only in the last two years. The moon is a 7 day round trip. So it is still out of reach of safety.
nas0ng 5 days ago
@nas0ng A search found these figures for radiation exposure. Apollo 11 173 millirads (100 millirads = 0.1 rad), Shuttle 433 up to 7,864, Skylab 2500 up to 17,800. Airline flight crew 200 per year, CT Scan 700.
Spindry96 5 days ago
@Spindry96 That is not a response to: The moon is a 7 day round trip. So it is still out of reach of safety.
nas0ng 5 days ago
Comment removed
nas0ng 5 days ago
@nas0ng If they were so good at predicting these things why go up at all in 1969? Check out the chart of solar activity on this page science•nasa•gov//science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/ and find 1969.
nas0ng 4 days ago
@Spindry96 Some sources as much as 100 rads per hour for the VAB.
nas0ng 6 days ago
Comment removed
nas0ng 5 days ago
Comment removed
nas0ng 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oops posted in the wrong place...
See the problem is your not recognizing the issue. 1.) In 1969 NASA could not accurately predict solar flares at all (NOAA/NASA press release in 2010 declared finally being able to predict them 2 days in advance). With a 7 day round trip there would be no way for astronauts to return to safety should a solar flare occur. And it did...
nas0ng 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nas0ng 2.) Per NASA's website "1964 for solar minimum and 1970 for solar maximum" 3.) also per NASA " At solar maximum the average rate was as high as 20 per day" Per
"A survey of Radiation Hazards & Shields for Space Craft & Habitats" from the INSTITUTE FOR NUCLEAR THEORY [in all caps because I copied and pasted not trying to yell ; )] "Solar flare: 100s-1000s rem."
nas0ng 4 days ago
can we just take a picture of the moon to see if there's a flag? it cant be that hard can it? oh btw, thx for the video, very helpful
thatmrdudeman 5 months ago
@thatmrdudeman Seems that way, but try to use google maps to view a flag pole and flag. Unfortunately, the only way to get a close enough view of the moon is to go there, which NASA has a monopoly on so it is either trust them or don't. Although many say the evidence for Apollo 11 is "overwhelming" I have yet to see it and I want it to be true.
nas0ng 5 months ago
I bet that more than half of the people who refute the moon landings believe in God. Catch my drift? If not, let me explain. They do not believe in something that is provable, but they do believe in something that is not provable. Anybody got some Tylenol?
rherbert57 5 months ago
@rherbert57 I am a devout atheist, raised by two atheist. They provided me with every religious text available and let me make my own decision. So I believe in the evidence as much as I would like to believe otherwise. It is silly to compare believers with skeptics as normally skeptics are what they are while believers are what they are as well.
nas0ng 5 months ago
@LunarTuner 1) there are plenty of examples of extremely dark shadows on the moons surface under rocks the shadow of the lander etc 2) Really? I find it difficult to believe there wouldn't be an opportunity to sneak something up during the "space race." There ARE records of at least a dozen unmanned missions to the moon prior to A-11. Six of which made it to the lunar surface with at least two landings with manned & umanned missions in orbit for roughly 6 months.
nas0ng 5 months ago
Dear LunarTuner,
Per cornell university "The lunar maria are: dark lavas inside volcanic calderas," google dark lava if your confused. I know what a retroreflector is/does, but thank you for the detailed description, that has nothing to do with how it got there. Your "answer" to my question is nothing if not ostrich like in it's avoidance of any other possibility.
nas0ng 5 months ago
Somehow I am missing the "PROOF." Ok the shadow, flag and star arguments are dumb. So this video only addresses the dumb questions? My only arguments with this video are: The suit shadow: Light reflecting off the surface of yellow sand sure, but a black basalt like material that would have been present at the first landing site? The reflector: There isn't any other possible explanation as to how something reflective got on the surface of the moon other than two human hands placing it there?
nas0ng 5 months ago
@nas0ng, I don't know how "black" you think lunar regolith is in the Sea of Tranquility, but through my telescope it's not too black. Describing a retroreflector as "something reflective" suggest you have no idea what it does. A luanar laser ranger can shine a photon beam directly at it from Tokyo & get returns 180 directly back. Another guy can do it from France and it will do the same thing. Try that with a mirror or any old "something reflective". There's no other record of how it got there.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner Although your response didn't really address any of my issues and had little or no argumentative value it did lead me to a search, and subsequently an interesting video...watch?v=hc7jIg7j544. Just to clarify my position I believe man has landed on the moon. However, I have serious doubts about Apollo 11. This video is far closer to "PROOF" than the tired, silly and safe video above (though admittedly the math makes no sense to me so it could be hot air too).
nas0ng 5 months ago
@nas0ng, My point was that 1) the lunar surface is enough reflective to fill a shadow (shown every full moon when the moon's reflectivity fills the shadow of earth's night) & 2) One could theoretically put an object on the moon using an unmanned craft, but not w/o the launch being detected. There's no record of any other launch than A-11 & no record of design, test or manufacture of any unmanned craft.
True, anything blisterhiker creates is quality. Listening to him is recommended.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner Just in case the previous comment was unclear...The 12+ unmanned lunar missions, that predated Apollo 11, were Soviet missions (and yes all 12 were to the moons surface). This doesn't include pre A-11 unmanned US space exploration (U.S. Ranger 7, Ranger 9, etc). The existence of retroreflectors on the moon is proof only of a soft landing, not a manned soft landing. All of the Soviet retroreflectors were placed in unmanned missions. So again original questions stand.
nas0ng 5 months ago
@nas0ng, Do any of the Ranger spacecraft have the capability of deploying a retro or is there any record whatsoever of a device? If not, you're merely offering conjecture. It's imaginative, but that's all. On the other hand, the evidence for A11 doesn't start or stop with the retros. Listing the rest of such such evidence is not even possible here.
Not all shadows are equal, but if the moon can light my backyard from 240,000 miles, imagine what it can do to a white, Nylon suit on the surface.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner No is is not conjecture, it is an argument and a valid one. You chose to comment on my opinion that this video has no "PROOF" and have yet to provide anything to the contrary.
1.) There are records of design, test and manufacture of unmanned craft.
2.) There are plenty of examples of dark shadows in other lunar footage.
3.) Your backyard, your telescope and your list of other evidence isn't applicable to this conversation.
Valid point or pick another video and I will see you there
nas0ng 5 months ago
@nas0ng, It's conjecture, since you offer no records of design, test or manufacture of the unmanned craft you IMAGINED. I never claimed this video was PROOF of anything, but Apollo has offered EVIDENCE that is overwhelming & has stood up against countless ill-conceived objections.
A shadow's darkness in photography is effected by exposure settings.
Fine, use someone else's backyard or telescope. You'll find that the moon's reflection can cause its own shadows, even from 240,000 miles away!
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner Seriously? Hmm, So it is your position that there is, "no records of design, test or manufacture of," an unmanned craft that was capable of landing on the moon, let alone one that actually did prior to July 20, 1969?
nas0ng 5 months ago
@LunarTuner As to the rest of your last comment to increase exposer to eliminate shadows would white wash the entire photo in the extremely bright reflective environment that you describe...even though A-11 landed in a dark basalt like environment.
And I don't care if your looking at the moon through the Gran Telescopio Canarias it has no bearing on the actual experience of being on the moon and how a camera would work.
nas0ng 5 months ago
@nas0ng, how ironic that you're telling me the composition of the regolith of the Sea of Tranquility when we know it because of the samples taken by A-11 and other Apollo missions. Sorry, but the moon is definitely reflective. If it were not, you would not see shadow on earth at night during a full moon. It doesn't become LESS reflective when you get close to it. An exposure taken from earth (say a.5.6 at 1/125 second using 100 OSI film) wouldn't change at all when you got on the surface.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner So it is your position that there is, "no records of design, test or manufacture of," an unmanned craft that was capable of landing on the moon, let alone one that actually did prior to July 20, 1969?
nas0ng 5 months ago
@nas0ng, No. You misunderstood me. Read carefully.
There is "no records of design, test or manufacture of" THE unmanned craft which you allege deployed the retroreflectors at the Apollos 11, 14 & 15 sites.
I'm challenging you to show me SPECIFIC records of the SPECIFIC US spacecraft you claim may have been launched and had the capability to deploy a retroreflector.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner 1st off I am the skeptic you are the believer so the burden of proof is yours. To summarize You admit:
1.) that the existence of retroreflectors on the moon is only proof of a soft landing
2.) that there were unmanned crafts (plural) that accomplished this prior to A-11
3.) the knowledge of the composition of any lunar maria first came from selenological data (Surveyor 1-1966)
4.) that there are shadows in some not in others so this is proves nothing.
nas0ng 5 months ago
@LunarTuner Ok as to the reflectivity issue. All matter is reflective to one degree or another especially when the Sun is shining on it. You admit that we know the composition of any maria is a dark volcanic rock which has extremely low reflectivity and take the entire moon as a whole (much of which is a very light gray, almost white) and use the shadow the entirety casts in your back yard as proof the the maria is equally as reflective? Preposterous.
nas0ng 5 months ago
@nas0ng, but reflective enough to fill in some shadows? Absolutely! In addition, an astronaut taking a photo of the shadow-side of another astronaut is himself, very reflective. In fact, his suit is designed to be as reflective as possible to dissipate heat. So is the LM. In fact, even the earth in the sky is reflecting light back to the moon. There is plenty of light to keep a shadow on the moon from being completely black. "Completely black" in this instance could not possibly exist.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner The video compares the reflectivity of a yellow sand desert to the black lunar sands. This video implies it debunked a conspiracy theory when it didn't. The image under debate hasn't one shadow. The only explanation for this is very very little light and very little reflected light with a very long exposer. Which is reasonable considering he is in the shadow of the LM in a dark maria, but that is not the argument you or this video made. Just ignoring my other comment?
nas0ng 5 months ago
@nas0ng, If you refer to the A-11 photo of Aldrin decending LM...
- Armstrong was stood in direct light (confirmed by video) & his suit acts as a reflector
- He opened the Hasselblad aperture (also confirmed by transcripts)
- The lunar surface in the photo is somewhat "white-washed", indicating that the aperture was opened wider for use in the LM shadow.
- The original Aldrin photo IS darker, but has been "pushed" and enhanced.
see w w w dot apollo dot mem-tek dot com/ISD dot html
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner I am referring to the astronaut in frames 0:21 to 0:29 of this video...so Aldrin. He is clearly not in direct light. If A-11 is in question, so is associated video/transcripts/NASA's story etc. So once again let us stick to the merits of this video any arguments pertaining to either the retros or the shadows in this video, or since their are hundreds of other videos select another and I will watch and comment. Still ignoring my comment "1st off I am the skeptic..."?
nas0ng 5 months ago
@LunarTuner ytcon dot debate at gmail dot com if you would like a more flexible environment for this conversation.
nas0ng 5 months ago
@nas0ng, I'm happy here. I'm making every point I need to.
LunarTuner 5 months ago
@LunarTuner Surprising...since you have yet to make one that was relevant to this video.
nas0ng 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nas0ng You still have yet to acknowledge:
1.) The existence of tried tested and deployed unmanned space craft to the moon equipped with retros.
2.) That the first samples of regolith did not come from the A-11 mission.
3.) The total lack of shadows is unlikely except with a long exposer.
nas0ng 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The moon missions were faked.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio (dot) html
Cosmored 6 months ago
4.38....in bright light the iris become smaller. Is this correct?
I'm not being funny here, but I would like a response please.
I would have said that the pupil looks smaller when there is light, not the iris.
empirestatebuilding1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
People want to believe in conspiracies because they want to believe there are people in this world smart enough and powerful enough to control the world. They do not want to believe this world is run by the people that appear to be in power, or no one, and that this world is out of control. People who try to perpetuate conspiracies are just playing mind games while wasting their time and real opportunities. Go to TruthContest(dot)com, open The Present, and read what it says to learn the truth.
DemianHermann 6 months ago
very false fake
atahualpa7770 7 months ago
Im sure this video proves that they could easily replicate the landing on earth. hmm
lillee13 8 months ago
@lillee13 No it doesn't.
In order to even remotely fake just the moonwalk you would need an extremely huge transparent vacuum chamber, and if you filmed the astronauts inside such a chamber then scientists would easily be able to see reflections of the cameramen - and even if it would've been possible to avoid reflections it would be too risky to attempt that anyway, plus you would still need to make the lift-offs and journeys to the moon seem 100% real.
SEVEN TIMES.
Laurelindo 7 months ago
you CAN'T LAND on the moon, because as soon as you exit earth's atmosphere, your dead meat. so let's cut the bulls--t
enchizitia 9 months ago
@enchizitia Where`s your proof for this statement.James Van Allen(whom the radioactive Van Allen Belts are named after) went on record repeatedly to say that the belts would not be deadly to apollo.I would expect him to know his subject!
swfcocs1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@enchizitia "as soon as you exit earth's atmosphere, your dead"
You never thought of spacesuits?
Oh, you never thought....
BjornPalmen 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ALIENS DID IT
Weeman44444444444444 9 months ago
well how in the hell does the flag WAVE around like theres wind....FYI there is no wind in gravity......EPIC FAIL and if we really did go to the moon than why havent we went back with technology now a days its like going up a escalator
kingbigdawg9 9 months ago
Couldn't Write everything here is another question....Astronauts recorded themselves walking the moon....1 day later and 2 miles later the terrain is identical to the day before...rocks in same postition everything the same. Another photo depicts the lunar lander and the background shows mountains...another picture from a different landing shows the exact same mountains in the background...but no lunar lander...hmm something to think about.
3rdCoastBeatzTV 9 months ago
Where is the blast crater from the landing? Neil describes the surface of the moon like a powder how are astronauts footprints still in place after lunar landings if the thrust would blow dust around the surface? The noise level of a rocket is in the 140-150dB range....so when Neil was landing this LEM how could you hear his voice so clearly? I've been doing some research on this subject but i'm not completely convinced that we did or didn't land...if anyone can answer these questions please do.
3rdCoastBeatzTV 9 months ago
Is really looking like a corinthians team flag waving from Itaquera desert
TheEl7ohim 9 months ago
i think that the greatest clue that confirms the moon landings is that thousands of people were involved in them. Not only the pilots but the mission control, engineers, physicists, mathematicians, military men, etc. How can so many people preserve such a huge secret for such a long time? And why didn't the Soviets prove the landing wrong? That would have given the Soviets an advantage in the space race. EDUCATE YOURSELVES!!!!
AmmoBravo 10 months ago
i went to the moon the other day and couldn't find any flags
galatasaray710 10 months ago
@galatasaray710= That's cause I took them to the laundrymat to get them washed.
vigo894 9 months ago
@schroedermilk Hey is there a spanish version of this? I need to show it to my friends.
TheSkepticChristian 11 months ago
An ultraviolet telescope was taken to the lunar surface on Apollo 16 and operated in the shadow of the lunar module. It captured pictures of the earth and of many stars, some of which are dim in visible light but bright in the ultraviolet. These observations were later matched up with observations taken by orbiting ultraviolet telescopes. Furthermore, the positions of those stars with respect to the earth are correct for the time and location of the Apollo 16 photographs. Hoaxturds are fools
Synthetrix 11 months ago
No denying there were unmanned missions that put those reflectors there.
MrTabby5000 11 months ago
@MrTabby5000, that's a theory, but you can't back it up. No unmanned spacecraft was launched at that time and if it was, it would have been detected by every nuclear power. There is no record of any kind of any such robotic craft and no single person has given testimony to such or shown a document, photo or anything. On the other hand, we have documentation, photos and film of the retroreflectors being placed and aligned.
LunarTuner 10 months ago
This guy like his brother was a liar and a fraud,We never went to no moon.Thats a fact.
MrTabby5000 11 months ago
@MrTabby5000 ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
GamingMusicVideos1 11 months ago
Okay, let's say that you're right and the United States never went to the moon and NASA faked the whole thing; they devised these elaborate frauds to fool the world to the benefit of the United States. Are you then assuming that they concluded that no nation could ever go to the moon to prove that NASA lied? Unmanned landings could also prove that the landing were faked; the ensuing disgrace far out weighs the stated reasons for perpetuating the fraud. Otherwise, please explain.
daurigl 9 months ago
@daurigl look up a movie called Capricorn One made in 1971, 2 year after the moon landing . Its about the USA faking landing on mars...sort of mocking the moon landing watch how good they are at making it look and similar the the lunar landing on the moon....they had a 4.2 million dollar budget. NASA had a 4 Billion dollar budget so it could have very well been faked.
3rdCoastBeatzTV 9 months ago
@3rdCoastBeatzTV Oh, I believe that NASA could fake a moon landing if it wanted, but there has to be a credible motive for them to do so. For NASA to commit this fraud they would first have to conclude that it could not be detected throughout the course of history. This seems like a very unreal expectation. When proven fake, any momentary sense or recognition of accomplishment would be forever stained by the disgrace of lying to the world. Think of the ramifications; is it worth the lie?
daurigl 9 months ago
@daurigl I'm not saying we didn't go to the moon just looking at some of the facts...but this was during the cold war and USA wanted to be #1...our government is crooked and you should no this by the stuff you see around...all the secrets that they don't tell us...I hope that we did really go to the moon...but if we didn't the truth will surface one day.
3rdCoastBeatzTV 9 months ago
the Human race is far more capable of great things than the moon landing. They have not hoaxed it. There are secret technologies, secret powers and knowledge of the unknown that have been kept secret from the public. The human race is capable of technologies that would look like alien technology to the normal person. The human race is capable of much more. Humans are a young but knowledgeable race, and will continue knowledgable but they will only be smart when they don't have anymore secrets.
Shift4chizzle 11 months ago
well like it or not! either man walked on the moon-or we fired a small system up there to place a laser connections! the proof is here: so whatever! i just wished we would go to the moon again! :)
29mayhem 11 months ago
PHEW... I nearly stopped believing after the many videos with proof we DIDNT land on the moon but now this video left me with no doubt that we did.
MatiasBeast 1 year ago
it is impossible for us to have been on the moon for one the Van Allen Radiation belts will kill ANY and ALL living things in that flying tin can. also Think about this: to date, only three countries have been able to put a man merely in Earth orbit – the United States, Russia, and China. There is a big difference between 240,000 miles and 400 miles. Why can’t anyone make it more than 400 miles from Earth today if we could make a 480,000 mile round trip in 1969? something smells fishy...
Neoclassicalman 1 year ago
@Neoclassicalman, No physicist believes that. 1967, the USSR put 2 dogs into the VAB (Kosmos 110) for 23 days! Came back alive! The ISS flies through the Southern Atlantic Anomaly part of the VAB several times a day. No one dies. The USSR sent a turtle, flies & worms through the VAB on Zond 5. They lived. Apollo only went through the VAB for less than 2 hours. Why was the fastest plane flight in '76? Why no supersonic airliner now? Why don't we go back to the Mariana Trench since 1960?
LunarTuner 1 year ago
yes you can survive the van allen belts They used armor (you don’t need 6 ft of lead) and only spent 4 hours in the Van Allen Belt. "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen" par of my exit project
billy918237 1 year ago 6
@billy918237 you watched a show on fox...... learn something about the "ship" and "lander" they used it had to be as light as possible to "make it there and back". are you dumb enough to think you can travel 240,000 kms in a couple hours? with a jet thruster engine? if you actually believe that i question your intelligence
Neoclassicalman 1 year ago
@Neoclassicalman
remember in space after you reach a velocoty you dont slow down unless you fire reverce thrusters
simple
ps i am 12 and i know this how old are you do SOME resherhc before you make wild acusatones
billy918237 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@billy918237 Learn to spell before you try to sound smart.
679robert 11 months ago
@billy918237 yeah, u dont need to be very old to know that, but good that you proved him wrong.
Shift4chizzle 11 months ago
Comment removed
Shift4chizzle 11 months ago
@Neoclassicalman you dont know anything about physics do you? in space of course you can go that fast out in space it is easy! and they didnt use jet thrusters, jets have to have oxygen to work, rockets dont, plus you have very little resistance against you so you can go as fast as you can in space, and on the moon it is 1/6th the gravity here on earth so the objects and stuff will be lighter anyway.
Shift4chizzle 11 months ago
@Shift4chizzle
Forman6 10 months ago
@Neoclassicalman no it will not kill anything or whatever u said, and 2nd if NASA didnt want you to know they hoaxed the moon landing (which they didnt) then why would they release information about that radiation ring that would "kill anything" that goes through it?! that just doenst make sense.
Shift4chizzle 11 months ago
How about the experiment where one of the astronauts (cant remember which) dropped the hammer and the feather at the same time and they reached the ground simultaneously. That is pretty solid proof since that can only occur in a vacuum
ShaneFitzJam 1 year ago 2
Some1 needs to point a powerfull telescope a the moon and see if the flag or moon buggy is there. China was going to send a rocket to the moon in 2009 to map the moons surface. That hasn't happened, maybe the yanks asked the chinks not to. The only way to know for sure is a telescope :-D
twistedbass15 1 year ago
I just think the coldness of space would kill a human. Not to mention radiation
differentstrokes9 1 year ago
@differentstrokes9 And THAT is why they wear protective suits and are in a ship! Oh wow...you aren't serious, are you?
WeeWeiners 1 year ago
@WeeWeiners sorry, my dad wrote that, using MY account, even I the one who is 27 years younger than him, knows that, but he says radiation can go through 6 feet of steel, is that true?
differentstrokes9 1 year ago
@differentstrokes9 yes and people before they invented diving suits would also drown from lack of oxygen...
heff4heather 1 year ago
@heff4heather very true
differentstrokes9 1 year ago
anyone notice that there are NO STARS
kyl20000000 1 year ago
I dont believe in almost ANY conspiracy at all but there is just sooooooo many facts against us going there.
mikehh9 1 year ago
@mikehh9 i understand what you feel. A few months ago I took the step though: I don't believe it anymore.
(if you like: google apollo and jack white)
losability 1 year ago
@losability
Still? Jack White is one of those 'experts' searching for 'troof'. He's a nutcase. Said that it was impossible for LRO to see parts of the LM on the surface of the Moon, because (as he said) "the astronauts left the Moon with the LM".
"I don't believe it anymore"
Something like: "I don't think that water is wet."
Rob260259 1 year ago
@losability
Again: There is a video about Jack White:
watch?v=gRzpdKcLPuo
And a nice thread:
h t t p : // apollohoax . proboards . com/index . cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=2481
Rob260259 1 year ago
@mikehh9 -- No. There are actualy no real "facts" against the Apollo landings.
All of the hoax-theories fall apart when you actually analyze them.
nesokretep 1 year ago 2
@nesokretep What about the shining wire hanging above the astronaut's helmet? It was on some video here..
blablablablablablaHA 1 year ago
@blablablablablablaHA -- The only thing I have ever seen that even looked anything like a "shining wire"was in a video that was such poor quality that there were "ghost" images of the astronauts and pixelated motion all over the entire background. A higher quality version of that same video has nothing that looks like "wires." And none of the other videos show any actual "wires."
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep you are wrong
rog944 1 year ago
@rog944 -- Nope. I am not wrong.
And if you think I am, you are welcome to try to prove it.
But you can't because I'm not wrong.
nesokretep 1 year ago 4
@rog944 yes u r rong
methecoolest30 1 year ago
This video is fake..........
tell me who take this video?
there is third person
mangeshutmhatre4 1 year ago
why nobody said nothing about the blast or the noise of the engine or the fake pictures?? the proof that no man has landed on the moon is that lately years nobody land on the moon cos the techonology now cant create fake landings and make fools out of all mankind
legionarul800 1 year ago
We confused...
4146866 1 year ago
i find it funny that most people who don't believe we landed on the moon also believe that ufo's visit earth. It's fun to see how scientific these people really are... they do NO research. Even if the government was corrupt and horrible, scientists would still be able to prove if people landed on the moon. I'm pretty sure Russia and China would've investigated it pretty well and they didn't seem to call the moon landing fake. (except for the minorities)
heff4heather 1 year ago
why are there so many people who have no faith in scientists. This makes me sad when scientists are really the only people in the world we can trust for truth ):
heff4heather 1 year ago
@heff4heather No.
XiledY0 1 year ago
MAN WENT TO THE MOON STUPID nasafakedit
KILLERGAMER1111 1 year ago
I guess simple physics isn't gona be enough to convince conspiricy theorists.
TheFinrider 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
US NWO Govt
chooses to
Fake the Moon Landings
nasafakedit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MAN LANDED ON THE TV MOON
filmed
on
Earth
nasafakedit 1 year ago
hahahaha how desperate are people when they start saying that we didnt land on the moon.... No matter what is done there will always be a pocket of people to try and dispute reality.
lillyi07 1 year ago
@lillyi07 the brainwashed human monkey
believes whatever the criminal govt puts on TV
Nasa Fake Everything
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@nasafakedit Nice troll account. I am assuming it is a troll account, because I would like to think that nobody is that dumb!
The one question a conspiracy theorist can never answer is, if the landing was faked and it is so obvious to you, then why didn't the Russians expose the fake and proceed with their moon landing mission? They tracked the Apollo module the whole way there and back. If anyone had proof the landing was faked, it would be the Russians. So why protect their enemies?
batedboy 1 year ago
Search for this on youtube Man didnt land on the moon part 1 (watch part 1-5) thats enough proofs to say that this is fake. really good job of them to pull it of tough
lagreify 1 year ago
@lagreify
your a dumbass, not too long ago japan not nasa, did a high resolution scan of the moon's entire surface where the lunar platforms left behind are clearly visible.
what now
CiniCraft 1 year ago
We obviously did land on the moon you fags. I hate these ignorant questions people keep postion
If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon, who was holding the camera?
WTF kind of question is that?
COMMANO38 1 year ago
@COMMANO38 It's called a studio.
natho369 1 year ago
@natho369 its called you shut the hell up MAN LANDED ON THE FUCKING MOON PERSON FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
KILLERGAMER1111 1 year ago
@KILLERGAMER1111 ok chill out man dont get all defensive i have a freedom of speech aswell you know.. and whats me being from a diffrent country (Australia) got too do with anything? The only evidence you have of man being on the moon is the media and so do I...
natho369 1 year ago
@natho369 holy shit youre dumb
ptraiders40 1 year ago
@ptraiders40 Your all just sheep god dam i cbf typing this out youll see in the next 50 years all the lies that our government aint telling us the curtain that is put infront of our eyes a prison for our mind...
natho369 1 year ago
@natho369 You are one gullible SOB of you think million of scientists are lying and you, the lone youtuber, think you're smarter than all of them.
Get a life, we went to the moon, tool.
ptraiders40 1 year ago
what a crok of shit,,,if anyone falls for this ,,jeasus.
fear946 1 year ago
@fear946, Virtually every aerospace engineer, astronomer and astrophysicist in the world "falls for this." Can you explain why we should listen to you instead of them?
LunarTuner 1 year ago
@LunarTuner why dont they go back then.
fear946 1 year ago
@fear946, There has to be a compelling reason to spend 100s of Billions of taxpayer dollars to go back to the moon. The only clear reason would be to establish a permanent base and that would be much, much, much more difficult and expensive. Long-duration space habitation still needs some study. We could go, but the reason has to be clear.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
@LunarTuner really and why did obama say that there next mission is mars,,,mars is further away and would cost more .spare me the lies.
fear946 1 year ago
@fear946, If you want me to explain what Obama EVER means, I am afraid you are asking too much. To my knowledge, Obama is not budgeting for a mission to mars...he has merely suggested it as an eventual goal by 2030. His budget does not suggest anything specific, but only 6 billion more for NASA over the next 5 years....whoodeedoo! I don't defend Obama's plan. He speaks for himself. All I'm saying is that going to the moon again has to have a compelling reason. If not, why go again?
LunarTuner 1 year ago
The first person to land on the moon... was Neil Armstrong....so..when he took that first step...it was recorded outside of the ship..WHO THE FUK WAS RECORDING?!?
eNARV1 1 year ago
@eNARV1, Neil Armstrong's first steps were transmitted live to earth from a camera that was mounted in the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly. This cabinet to the left of the ladder was deployed by Armstrong by pulling a handle at the top of the ladder before he came down. He confirmed that it was on and then came down. The camera was "pre-aimed" on earth. This question has been asked millions of times. I think NASA was on top ot this one ;)
LunarTuner 1 year ago
@eNARV1
"Who was taking the picture"...well eNARV, we could tell you but we won't, becuase that question has been answered so many times only a brain dead sack of greasy leftover assfuckings would ask so you are obviously too retarded to understand.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
@TheJomogogo you can actually be nice and couldve told me but i gues your too much of an asshole and dick and i can tell that your family doesnt love you and have no friends.
eNARV1 1 year ago
@eNARV1
I am never nice to people who think the Apollo landings were faked, they are pathetic assholes that deserve to be treated like the shit wits they are.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
@TheJomogogo dude this shits fake....dont deny it....the "fake" is allllll over the damn video! cmon now dude....
eNARV1 1 year ago
Faking the manned landings on the moon and keeping it a secret would have been the most monumental accomplishment in human history. Instead, we just actually went to the moon, took film, thousands of photos, collected over 800 lbs. of lunar samples, were watched and tracked by the Soviets and left retroreflectors as proof we were there. That was MUCH easier!
LunarTuner 1 year ago
if man never went,dont you think the russians would of said,considering they was watching.
deano8718 1 year ago
The shadows is not .
The real problem is 10,000 years of dust.
No resistance and lots of dust. in a pond that was never dived on? got you.
They can see you from space. Can't they see the first step of Neil? To prove it?
Gavan58e 1 year ago
we didnt land on the moooooooooooooon
44flako 1 year ago 2
@44flako YES WE DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID.
legumes12 1 year ago
@44flako Yes, one of the biggest achievements of the Man
Jordache22222 1 year ago
@Jordache22222 one of the biggest achievements you THINK, the government is fooling all of you. They had the real astronauts that knew the reality murdered accusing it as an accident. Why do you think they have area 51?? The only rotated around the world and claimed to have been to the moon. I love my country, but the government, sorry it's nothing but a word meaning secretary bullshit!
44flako 1 year ago
@44flako If you like your country, finish a college, learn math, learn physics, learn geography, learn history. Then, with enough knowledge on board you can judge your government more appropriately and see the world with wiser eyes, don't rely on Internet and Mass media.
Jordache22222 1 year ago
44flako = a typical failure of the education system of today.
Synthetrix 1 year ago