If there is a cult of people on earth more ignorant, more intolerable, and more unwaveringly wrong in every one of their idiotic assumptions than Muslim extremists; it is the fucking conspiracy theorists. The term "feckless oxygen thieves" has never been more apt. I say we ship them all off to the moon to bounce around on it themselves. Without spacesuits.
with each hop everything comes straight back down to the ground. zero gravity and the force of his leg muscles would have sprung him into the atmosphere and thrust him pretty damn far! the dust would have hung in the air as blurry clouds. these are some of the basics we were taught in science and we all know that seeing is believing. .stop searching so hard! it's right dead in your face. WAKE UP SHEOPLE!!!!!
@snaredrum110 -- Wait. You said before that they looked so light because they were suspended on wires.
Now you're saying that they didn't jump very high because they were normal weight in Earth's gravity.
You can't have it both ways.
Now I'm really curious: Were you lying when you said they were suspended? Or were you lying when you said they were subject to full gravity with nothing taking their weight off?
You were obviously lying in one of those statements because they are contradictory.
As I have said all along, if you actually LOOK at the video (frame by frame if you want) you see that the kicked material IS falling at the same speed as the astronaut.
If they are both in free-fall, then they MUST fall at the same speed because they cannot defy the law of gravity.
SO:
If the astronaut is suspended on wires, then HOW did they suspend the kicked material?
(I know you will not answer honestly. You'll even pretend to not understand if you have to. But I ask again anyway.)
@prosperomage human and sand dont fall down at the same time dude... get your lessons on physics... and can you answer me the question how can he jump only so low if there is gravity 1/6 of ours? with that strong jumps you would jump higher even on the earth so gtfo with your foolish troll theories.... waiting for your answer mr believer
@Brandyk007 -- If you push off in a forward direction, you go forward.
If he wants to go forward, why would he push up?
How can he go higher if he is pushing mostly forward?
And yes, everything falls at the same speed -- humans, sand, basketballs, lead pipes -- everything. Look up the law of universal gravitation.
And then do a frame-by-frame analysis of the speed things are falling in this video. Everything that goes to the same height falls back down at the same time.
@snaredrum110 -- You yourself said that the astronaut must be suspended on wires in order to extend his strides so far forward. If he is suspended on wires, then he is falling slower than normal.
But the kicked material is falling at the same speed as he is.
It doesn't matter if the film is sped up or slowed down. What matters is that they are falling at the same speed. So back to my original question:
If he is suspended on wires, then how did they suspend the kicked material?
@snaredrum110 -- The sand or dust or whatever would have to fall faster than he does if was on Earth. Unfortunately for your conclusion, you can see that it does not, especially at 0:12 and 0:33 (and other places too.)
And the vertical height he "should be" achieving depends on the direction of his push. There is no reason he should push so that he goes up "at least two feet minimum" if he is traveling forward.
Sorry but what you are describing is not what is in the video.
@snaredrum110 -- Some of them were 3 feet. Some were 4 or 5. And a few were about 6. But you need me to prove it?
Yeah, it really must suck to not be able to measure things for yourself.
Here -- try this: Post a video of anyone on Earth taking strides like that without even hardly bending their legs like he is doing, and let's compare it to this one.
(Hint: don't waste your time. You won't be able to do it.)
@snaredrum110 -- Some of them were 3 feet. Some were 4 or 5. And a few were about 6. But you need me to prove it?
Yeah, it really must suck to not be able to measure things for yourself.
Here -- try this: Post a video of anyone on Earth taking strides like that without even hardly bending their legs like he is doing, and let's compare it to this one.
(Hint: don't waste your time. You won't be able to do it.)
@snaredrum110 -- Yes. Everybody knows that when you double the camera speed, it is easy to take strides that are six feet for each step.
No ... he must have been suspended on wires, right? Nobody can take six-foot long jumps one right after another in a bulky suit without being suspended.
And look at the dust. It goes up and down the same time he does.
Hoax-theory cult member's obvious (and only) answer: Each dust particle was suspended on wires, too!!
@mekare00 -- La tecnología aeroespacial de hoy es casi el mismo como lo fue en 1969. Los cohetes son los mismos. Lo principal que está más avanzada hoy en día son las computadoras más pequeñas y rápidas. El costo de volver a la Luna sería de alrededor de medio trillón de dólares. Y el público de EE.UU. no apoyará que el Congreso gaste el dinero.
@b03y -- The moon is about 1/6 the size of Earth. That means it has about 1/6 the gravity of Earth. On the moon, it is much easier to jump around because a 180 pound person with a 200 pound back pack like he has would only weigh (180 + 200) / 6 = about 60 pounds. But even though he'd only weigh 60 pounds, he still wouldn't "float up into space."
another example of NASA shills slowing the film down, note the dust doesnt fly above his head like it should at 1/6th gravity, falls like sand on earth, which it is
how THE FUCK do you know how high the dust should fly? Do you know how much upward force is being generated on it? No, you're just making shit up ....again.
@Blahblobify ... hey shill nice to see you ... so i guess when things are 1/6th gravity it means shit should go just as far as they do on earth ... hey can you help me on this, why are there no tracks UNDER the LR in AS17-140-21354? thanks, Nasa :)
@pt1gard -- Hey ... if the astronaut can take 6-foot-long strides in this video, I guess you think he must be "hung on wires" right?
Well ... the dust goes up and down at the same time he does.
HOW did they hang the DUST on wires??
(And NO, in 1/6g the dust should NOT fly up above his head. It should travel out in front of him like it does because he's kicking it forward, not up.)
@pt1gard your a loser,a little douchbag who is hiding behind his keyboad saying its faked and all the rest,what kind of sand are you used to back home ? you havent a clue about space or the moon so go away and be a dweeb were it suits u best.your parents must be ashamed to have bred a little poisened dwarf
@pt1gard -- So have you figured out how they had the astronaut take 6-foot-long strides in this video?
They hung him on wires maybe??
So, if they hung him on wires, then how did they make the rise & fall of the dust match the rise & fall of the astronaut? (Hint: Slow motion doesn't even start to explain it. Regardless of what speed the video is played at, if the astronaut is hung on wires, the rise & fall of the dust would not match his like it does.)
Notice that the parabolic motion of the dust as it rises and falls is consistent with the parabolic motion of the astronaut (use his feet as a point of reference).
So therefore: If the astronaut was "suspended on wires" in order to elongate his forward motion and "simulate" 1/6g gravity of the moon, then the DUST particles must ALSO have been suspended on wires. (Slow motion alone does NOT replicate this motion.)
The "wire suspension" of the so-called "hoax theory" is completely absurd.
Do you know the one type of comment more often seen on moon landing videos other than conspiracy theroies? Comments saying how much they hate people who type conspiracy theories. Just saying.
@calculatethinkwonder I hate them. They mock the courage these men had. It was not hollywood. There was a very real danger to these missions and they soil it with their worthless 9/11 crap no one cares about. They need to go back to play WoW or COD.
Para los seguidores de esta discusión en mi pueblo: me muestran su punto o se callan, no me importan sus opiniones si no son capaces de mostrar (no de decir) su punto.
For followers of this discussion in my town: show me your point or shut up!, I do not care your opinions if you are not able to SHOW (don't say) your point.
It's done in slow motion, on a set, on the earth. If it was really the moon, he could jump 6 feet high, weighing only the equivilent of about 36 earth pounds. Think about it.
And here is Clinton's quote: (PART 1) "Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the Moon, beating by five months President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the Moon before the decade was out.
@potrodsas Wrong. Clinton never said any such thing. You are taking the quote from his autobiography out of context. I'll try to get the entire quote up so people can see it in its original format.
Well I do not know,if I would be running on strange planet like this....with no fear of deep pockets, filled with cosmic dust of ions,where you could fall several hundred feet under and they would never find you. Try walking on the flower in flower mill storage. I do not really suggest that!
if these so called astronauts were on the moon for real they surely wouldn't be jumping around like kangaroos.this would've jolted them straight into outer space -never to be seen again. DUH ! so any ways you'd never see what happened to them anyway because the dust they just stirred up with their moon boots wouldn't be falling back down to the ground.DUH as much dust as they kicked up it would look thicker than the bp oil spill. we need not look hard to tell this is FAKE wake up sheople. lol
@1BUNNYMAXIMOUS the moon has some gravity you watch too much movies to hoot up you ned to have super legs and their no air for the dust to go up and it goes down becaus eof gravity remember this is a 1969 camera u cant see evry spec of detail
Every little picture you see, is a video that says Apollo was a hoax.
There are many 1000s of videos like these in the Internet,and soon will be millions.
This is the reality and if you don't like it ,I'm going to use the historic phrase of J. Lundberg when he found the pictures are fake,and said : " Perhaps you should find Armstrong and ask him"..
@potrodsas why would they waste millions of dallors to send a rocket ship into space and not do anything if it was fake do you really think they would care to do it?
@potrodsas who's pockets? didnt you see the video of the rocket ship they spent the money on? doesnt really affect any of are lifes if its fake or real you have the astronaunts to prove it dont understand why people automaticly say oh my god its fake! when u have no proof
My grand mother would be much more capable of understanding engineering than you are. Even though she's been dead for 30 years.
(Especially as I see you are only capable of answering one part of a post and not the other. Your stupid-ass statement cannot account for the pay going to the half-million people who worked on the project.)
.
Do you work for NASA? Your idiocy makes hoax-cult followers look stupid. Do they pay you for that?
@potrodsas That doesn't prove that the landings were fake, that just proves that the number of stupid people is constantly increasing. Something most non-stupid people have been aware of for a while now.
five times they send man to moon and why they didn't go after 1970s to moon and now only they discovered water in moon without man in moon. if they send man to moon on 1969 means i'm sure now there will be one space station in moon , nothing is true
@sounza You realize, that a moon station is a mission which would last very long? You realize, that Apollo was a short trip? Building a station means, they have to develop new rocket systems, new equipment, new shielding for longer radiation exposure etc etc. And this has been going on. Skylab, the explorations and experiments done on the Shuttles, the ISS, they are all part of the plan to go back to the moon and to mars.
@ccrg109 ok hold on. you're not listening to me now. HALVE THE speed of the footage, then you'll see its just a REGULAR guy, doing a REGULAR hopping technique with an obsolete spacesuit that has no joints of articulation. you dont know if the footage is real cos you werent there filming it! i bet you also think osama blew up the twin towers!!?? please dont be so ignorant
@lordrevanchist I love how idiots like you ASSume things just to justify your own thinking... Like it magically makes you right and everyone else wrong? Are you kidding me?... Grow up.
We were not talking about the WTC so how about you stop being so arrogant in making stupid assumptions.
Also, if you halved the video then it would still BE real. I can't claim to know what that would look like but, unless you can provide solid evidence to back it up, I'm not buying it.
@lordrevanchist Actually the footage has been tested as authentic. The only way you could get the bunny hop like that was to actually have 1/6 gravity. Slowing down the footage of a 1 gravity bunny hop did not produce any convincing results, nor did wires.
@Potrimpo ok. then explain to me how that piece of shit lunar lander made it back to earth in the 60s, when space shuttle Challenger couldnt even make it back in '03 (RIP to challenger crew). and explain why 'hitchcock' was stupid enough to use the SAME mountainous background in multiple locales in the footage reel.
@lordrevanchist It was the Columbia in 2003, Challenger was 1986. Because the Saturn 5 rocket didn't have that foam that knocked loose of the heat shields on the reentry vehicle like Columbia. And if go into the middle of the desert, you may find a similar Hitchcock blunder there.
@lordrevanchist Also the accusation was Stanley Kubrick faked it. But can you prove that the alleged background of alleged location where they allegedly landed doesn't look the same from 2 or more different directions? You literally have to go to the moon to find out.
And can you explain the contradiction you conspiracy theorist made? How heat cannot be transferred in the vacuum of space, yet claim fake when the astronauts should have been fried in the sunlight while in a vacuum?
@lordrevanchist The lunar lander never came back to Earth, unless you are referring to the infamous Apollo 13 incident, and in that case the crew used the lunar lander as temporary quarters until they arrived back at Earth, then they landed in the standard capsule (A lunar lander could never survive orbital reentry to the Earth's atmosphere.).
Due to there are a lot of probabilistic inconsistencies into modern theories, any analysis is very hard to do, I advice waiting for another missions of another countries for making the crossing data, in this case, the proposer (NASA) should wait because the events (Trips to Moon) belong to recent history and still applying of crossing data for validating is possible.
@Leivinn20 The idea that NASA killed Gus Grissom to cover up the hoax is way more far-fetched and ridiculous, and you chose to believe that over the real stories of voyages to the moon? Have you actually done any unbiased research? Any attempt to check out the debunking of moon hoax? Are you still stuck on "no stars in the photos" or "breeze moving the flag"? You keep repeating yourself, yet you have no data or valid theory to back it up.
@iakny : My arguments can´t to prove that the USA wasn´t the first country which achieved Landing on the Moon, My concept framework is designed for using by common people. Beside to practice my English, I am helping to the Latin-Americans to know the kind of leadership used by USA. The alternative viewpoints help to obtain a profile of the USA leaders mind. In fact, my objective of researching is the leadership of USA. Trips to Moon are a sensitive point.
@iakny : In short: In short: I am not follower of conspiracy theory from FOX-TV, it´s quite stupid. In fact, it´s made to make NASA looks terrific. God bless you.
@Leivinn20 OK, how about presenting some examples of "probabilistic inconsistencies"? Lets show us what you got. You seem like an interesting person. Show us some more.
@iakny : It´s simple point; if you project the actual intensity of meteor impacts for over 3 billion on years, and add the effect of igneous process during the forming of surface into 1/6 gravity, the astronauts shouldn´t take for known the solidness and flatness of Moon surface when they are walking or jumping around. However, that behavior is constant in all videos. I am not believe on large ages but they believe it and teaching it.
@Leivinn20 They new how solid the moon was due to the results of the unmanned probes they sent there in preparation for the manned flights. You are correct that the "solidness" of the moon WAS a concern for NASA initially, hence why they did their best to acertain it beforehand.
@Leivinn20 However, do make sure that when presenting us with your hypothesis, you arrive with some ammunition, not some Google search result. Make sure you do everything possible to prove anything you want us to believe. For example, if your hypothesis is "well, the moon rocks could have been created in the labs", show us something to back it up. Don't just state that, since that would be an incomplete inquiry, akin to the devices used by the conspiracy theorists. Show research, not vocabulary.
@Leivinn20 actually, knowing that nothing can change the minds of conspiracy theorists, I am just gonna move on and do better things, so enjoy your debates.
@Leivinn20 There is no inconsistency. There is no theory. There is the fact that man went to the moon and there are the idiots who don't believe this.
@EmperorofCartoons : I insist there is a lot of lost information, it would have been quite hard for a space probe "pick up" so detailed information, as the information known by astronauts apparently. Even they extracted Rover from lunar module and started y to drive around immediately, regardless by where they were. By the way, the theory about moon surface origins is still in discussion process at present.
@Leivinn20 Why would you consider it hard for a probe, even from that era, to figure out the dynamics of the moon's surface? Granted the technology was more primitive than today but its was still well within the bounds of reason. And if they new the moon's structure dynamics why would they drive the rover around areas they knew to be safe (Which of course they knew because the landing zone had been well scouted in advance by probes and spectrography.).
@EmperorofCartoons : Per example: the ground radar tech didn't exist on the sixties. Any model of ground should be based on inferences, therefore, it was needed a "on site" verifying to make sure the ground had not irregularities under it. They just took Rover out and started to drive around. I know that the superficial uniformity insinuated certain uniformity under ground, however, the solidness is a different issue. Their behavior was clearly negligent.
@Leivinn20 Considering that 5 lunar Surveyor probes, 7 Ranger probes and three prior Apollo missions had all determined the general consistency of the lunar surface, I don't see this as negligent at all.
But sure, maybe they should have walked around for an hour with a pole just to check the Rover doesn't get bogged. That makes plenty of sense.
@EmperorofCartoons : Let me show you my point using an example: Imagine you belong to first mission to Mars, Would you extract a vehicle from spacecraft such as Rover and start to drive around immediately as shown on these videos?...when you visit a new area on the Earth such Amazon river, Sahara desert and others, don't you do a exploratory round in first place?...
@nesokretep : If you were alone in the amazon river region, would you explore the ground how astronaut on this video do it?. The point is not "had any man on the moon?"; instead the point is: are there valid reasons which induce doubts to the common citizens?.
@Leivinn20 -- If the question is: "If I were alone in the amazon river region, would I walk around as though the ground might swallow me up at any moment?"
Then the answer is: No. Of course not.
I would walk (or drive) around, doing my exploration in a relatively expedient manner, knowing that the ground generally does not just open up and swallow people without telltales signs of water-covered quick sand or something.
@nesokretep : Where was the verifying device of ground when this video was recorded?. Keep in mind: the point is not "had any man on the moon", instead the point is: are there valid reasons which induce doubts to the common citizens?. Let me suggest you a exercise: watch the first trip to moon video, then, make a survey or poll: ask to your neighbors. "how many elements shown on this video can't be made by means of movie technology from the sixties?".
@nesokretep According to you, did I get show my point?. I admit that I'm interested on breaking of the american psychological influence on southamerican citizens mind, therefore, I need show american psique in front of southamerican citrizens.
@Leivinn20 -- In English the word is spelled "psyche" (with the same root spelling as "psychological").
And yes, I agree that America exerts too much of some of the wrong kinds of influences on the rest of the world, especially through our horribly vapid entertainment industry, as well as too much use of our military.
@nesokretep : Exactly, it's need to decrease US influence on underdeveloped countries, even psychological aspects. Per example: The US economic system is based on "private enterprise is by nature more efficient than any kind of public administration", and in fact, such system worked fine for US, however, third world entrepreneurs preferred migrate their capitals unto US, in consequence, a growing of communist movements occurred, which are based on public opinion.
@Leivinn20 -- But, frankly, I don't think you're on the right track with this kind of questioning about the danger of the exploration.
Of course it was dangerous. Men often die in the first exploration of a new place. For example, Columbus lost a ship (his largest, the Santa Maria) and, eventually, 40 of his men, on his first voyage to the Americas.
Most ground is fairly solid. There are only a few kinds where it is liable to open up, most notably ice bridges. The moon has none of that.
@Leivinn20 -- I do not know of any large, flat, dry areas on Earth where it is unsafe to drive a vehicle because the ground is not solid enough. I suppose it is possible, but it is very rare. And so I don't think there would be cause to not drive pretty much anywhere that it is flat on the moon.
(If you want to attack the influence of the American psyche on the rest of the world, I would suggest attacking our horrible entertainment, our finance, and the stupidity of our foreign policy.)
@nesokretep : I don't want to discuss about technical questions, however, as far as I know several theories about origin of moon surface are being discussed yet. According to me, it's not necessarily true that any surface originated by meteor impacts and igneous processes does not imply certain risks. Keep in mind. my point is perception.
Clinton's Quote part 2: The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that 'them television fellers' could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time."
Nowhere does Clinton even hint the landings were fake or that he believes they are fake.
@EmperorofCartoons It's because Fox [News] and some stupid fuck named Bart Sibrel said they didn't, everybody starts believing their half-completed research
Coming…The human being fear to leave out basis of its own worldview ((perhaps they are a little afraid). The evidence from trips to Moon have this kind of problem. By the way, the biggest southamerican problem is not intellectual, it´s moral. We can build a nuclear submarine since decades ago…But we have problems for reaching a agreement each other.
I don´t know how big is your knowledge about scientific methodology, as theoretical exercise; try to compare the probability for forming of life by means of chance against the current standard time scale, I hope you realize that the dinosaurs couldn´t have been here 65 millions of years ago. These circumstances are probabilistic inconsistencies, which are due to in several occasions to worldview of researchers. The evidence from trips to Moon have this kind of problem.
The probabilistic inconsistencies of theory are due a lot of times to the researchers deny to abandon the presuppositions which form the basis of their worldview. The trip to Moon are fresh or recent events, the common people still can to choose the favorite method for verifying, such as: verify technological level of NASA on sixties, waiting for new missions, crossing data from several sources, and another ones. Demanding to common people believe on NASA version of Trips to Moon is anethic.
@Leivinn20 what have you got, a thesaurus with you?
They landed on the moon. Don't be an idiot.
Here is another point everyone misses. If they were to fake the landings, they wouldn't have bothered with LLRV training. That thing almost killed Neil Armstrong. Given the dangers, the astronauts wouldn't have agreed to train on it if they weren't really going to the moon.
Problem with people like you is that you don't understand science, and you never will.
@iakny: I am common person, I am trying to show view point of common people. Keep in mind or take account (how ever you say it), there are several hypotheses, for example: wanted NASA showing to Soviets its most sophisticated technology on the sixties?, can any astronaut walks around on the Moon without take account solidness of ground like videos show it?. The scientific method requires making several hypotheses. About "my thesaurus", I am learning English, and I hate poor lexical.
I admit that several modern theories have intrinsic inconsistencies from view point of probability calculus, this phenomenon occurs on videos of trips to Moon, evolution theory and anothers. The astronauts behavior show they take for granted the ground´s features such as solidness and flatness, it looks little inconsistent in relation with the forming processes of Moon surface, such as: igneous activity and meteor impacts.
Let me give you an advice: the validating method by excellence is the "crossing data"(comparison between different data sources), it´s advisable waiting until get data coming from another missions, I am sure that the great media of USA will earn quite a lot of money when foreign missions reach the Moon, the media will do it by means of making comparisons.
@pygar2. i'm tired of this. there has never been a suggestion by anyone other than yourself that the 'rock' that the dutch subjected to analysis was anything other than the sample provided by nasa. nasa are bent. they lie all the time. get over it.
@sizzlinsausage Still waiting for that NASA photo... after all, all the rocks were photographed, and the donation ceremony is bound to have been filmed and photographed. Probably even a nice closeup of the rock in the papers the next day. There has never been any suggestion by anyone other than an Apollo denier, that NASA gave out petrified wood as a moonrock.
i can't post links here, but a simple search of the BBC website will show all you gullible mugs who still believe in the moon landings myth that the 'moon rock' that the americans graciously gave to the dutch turned out to be petrified wood. lots of lucky countries were given 'moon rock' by the americans, but thus far only the dutch have had the temerity to call the americans bluff by testing theirs. how unsporting of them...
@sizzlinsausage Translation: someone stole the Dutch moon rock, and left a piece of petrified wood in its place, presumably because it was the least moonrock-like rock available. Pranks are no fun if the victim never knows about it. Unless you can show me an official NASA photo of that rock, and/or of its being handed to the Dutch by NASA, there is no reason to connect NASA to that rock..
@jlyh55 The "kangaroo hop" is the easiest way to move around on the Moon. Their leg movement was severely restricted by their suits. These were many layers thick, and not unlike a tire in construction.
Observe careful: the astronaut takes for granted the ground is solid enough but we can´t to observe any evidence of previous inspection, in addition, the landing gear of Spacecraft was designed for soft surface.
@Leivinn20 Solid rock seems to be just under the surface, everywhere on the Moon we've been. The dust pits feared in Fifties SF, show no sign of existing. The landing pads were about a yard wide, supporting a 3-ton vehicle- so each pad carried less than a ton, over an area a yard wide.
@Pygar2 I am not astrophysics expert and neither special effect, therefore, I can´t to denied or affirm all data from trip to moon are real o false. I only said: At seems, the astronauts have knowledge about ground solidness regardless where they walk or jump, but I can´t observe evidence of any previous exploration. Keep in mind, the historic event haven´t been validated by other country.
@Pygar2 Besides, your observation is valid, apparently it´s very improbable forming of a uniform enough dust layer , over all if we are based on the assumption that the Moon surface was originated by means of igneous processes and meteor impacts either...my first language is spanish, I call this "Pedro por su casa" argument, it means about: "Pedro by/at home" argument. The english is a great idiom.
@Leivinn20 The various impacts and igneous events make rock. the constant changes in temperature, plus the slow sandblasting of billions of years of micrometeorites, powders the top layer. There is no liquid to make ground anything but solid-- what else *could* it be, but solid? What else could be under the powder layer? He is simply loping down a hill, no worse than any other hill the Apollo astronauts had to deal with. Why would there be any problem with this?
@Pygar2 : Each day I am more convinced. It´s necessary validating process by other sources, Sir Francis Bacon made the most important contribution in the history the west science; the scientific method. I think, the English is the language of the science and madness. Even today, the americans use this video during to convinced to southamericans they won the space race during the sixties.
"weee! im having fun and nobody can stop me!"
BOBMATIONproductions 3 weeks ago
Yeah, he ran real fast. Think you meant to say "Jumped"
declan95 4 weeks ago
If there is a cult of people on earth more ignorant, more intolerable, and more unwaveringly wrong in every one of their idiotic assumptions than Muslim extremists; it is the fucking conspiracy theorists. The term "feckless oxygen thieves" has never been more apt. I say we ship them all off to the moon to bounce around on it themselves. Without spacesuits.
Powell101 1 month ago
Comment removed
Cartoonyworld109 1 month ago
with each hop everything comes straight back down to the ground. zero gravity and the force of his leg muscles would have sprung him into the atmosphere and thrust him pretty damn far! the dust would have hung in the air as blurry clouds. these are some of the basics we were taught in science and we all know that seeing is believing. .stop searching so hard! it's right dead in your face. WAKE UP SHEOPLE!!!!!
kountrygirls1 1 month ago
@kountrygirls1 You're funny.... The Moon has gravity, 1/6 of the gravity on Earth. This video shows that...
hceely 1 month ago
@kountrygirls1 -- If those "basics" were taught in science class, then some science teacher someplace needs to get fired.
The moon has no "air." Anything kicked up MUST come right back down as it does in this video. It CANNOT stay up in a cloud.
Wake up yourself.
... it really would be nice if people would think for themselves instead of just believing hoax-crap like a bunch of sheep.
prosperomage 1 month ago
@snaredrum110 -- NASA never intended these films to be studied by the public?
You're smoking the funny stuff, again, right?
NASA provides these videos to the public. They always have. Anyone can get them straight from NASA. Anyone has been able to get them for 40 years.
Try again.
prosperomage 1 month ago
@snaredrum110 -- Wait. You said before that they looked so light because they were suspended on wires.
Now you're saying that they didn't jump very high because they were normal weight in Earth's gravity.
You can't have it both ways.
Now I'm really curious: Were you lying when you said they were suspended? Or were you lying when you said they were subject to full gravity with nothing taking their weight off?
You were obviously lying in one of those statements because they are contradictory.
prosperomage 1 month ago in playlist Liked videos
As I have said all along, if you actually LOOK at the video (frame by frame if you want) you see that the kicked material IS falling at the same speed as the astronaut.
If they are both in free-fall, then they MUST fall at the same speed because they cannot defy the law of gravity.
SO:
If the astronaut is suspended on wires, then HOW did they suspend the kicked material?
(I know you will not answer honestly. You'll even pretend to not understand if you have to. But I ask again anyway.)
prosperomage 1 month ago
@snaredrum110 -- And your stupid "liar" accusation doesn't work.
I'm not claiming anything. I'm asking a question that you keep avoiding.
(In the end, avoiding and accusing are the only arguments that hoax-theory believers cult members have.)
prosperomage 1 month ago
@prosperomage human and sand dont fall down at the same time dude... get your lessons on physics... and can you answer me the question how can he jump only so low if there is gravity 1/6 of ours? with that strong jumps you would jump higher even on the earth so gtfo with your foolish troll theories.... waiting for your answer mr believer
Brandyk007 1 month ago
@Brandyk007 -- If you push off in a forward direction, you go forward.
If he wants to go forward, why would he push up?
How can he go higher if he is pushing mostly forward?
And yes, everything falls at the same speed -- humans, sand, basketballs, lead pipes -- everything. Look up the law of universal gravitation.
And then do a frame-by-frame analysis of the speed things are falling in this video. Everything that goes to the same height falls back down at the same time.
prosperomage 1 month ago
@Brandyk007 -- And FYI: I am not saying that I "believe" anything.
I am just pointing out the idiocy of the hoax-theory believers' claims.
prosperomage 1 month ago
@Brandyk007 -- Example of idiocy:
How high can you personally jump? One foot? Two feet off the floor?
Now -- are you capable of only jumping one inch off the floor if you want to?
According to YOUR logic, it should be impossible for you to choose to jump only one inch off the floor.
Question: Can you think of anything more stupid than the logic you used about the height of the astronaut's jumps?
prosperomage 1 month ago
@snaredrum110 -- maybe you'll understand the question this way:
Regardless of whether it is dust or sand; regardless of whether it is wet or dry; regardless of whether the film was sped up or slowed down:
You can SEE that the kicked material FALLS AT THE SAME SPEED.
So: If he is suspended on wires ...
Then: How did they suspend the sand or dust to get it to fall at the same speed?
prosperomage 1 month ago
@snaredrum110 -- You yourself said that the astronaut must be suspended on wires in order to extend his strides so far forward. If he is suspended on wires, then he is falling slower than normal.
But the kicked material is falling at the same speed as he is.
It doesn't matter if the film is sped up or slowed down. What matters is that they are falling at the same speed. So back to my original question:
If he is suspended on wires, then how did they suspend the kicked material?
prosperomage 1 month ago
@snaredrum110 -- As I said, do a frame-by-frame analysis if you want to.
The dust (or sand or whatever it is) falls at the same speed he does.
So back to my original question:
If he is suspended on wires, then how did they suspend the sand (or dust or whatever it is)?
prosperomage 1 month ago
@snaredrum110 -- The sand or dust or whatever would have to fall faster than he does if was on Earth. Unfortunately for your conclusion, you can see that it does not, especially at 0:12 and 0:33 (and other places too.)
And the vertical height he "should be" achieving depends on the direction of his push. There is no reason he should push so that he goes up "at least two feet minimum" if he is traveling forward.
Sorry but what you are describing is not what is in the video.
Try again.
prosperomage 1 month ago
One of these days I'd like to know why hoax-theory cult members think they can just make up any old shit that they think fits their argument
You can see his whole motion. You can see his feet. You can see each impact with the surface. There is no magical invisible sand scooper.
AND you can see that the dust falls the same speed he does.
Don't just "believe" me. Do a frame-by-frame analysis.
All of which leaves you with the original question: If he's on wires, how do they suspend the dust??
prosperomage 1 month ago
@snaredrum110 -- It doesn't matter if it's sand or dust. It goes up and down at the same time as the astronaut. You can clearly see that in the video.
So back to my original question:
If the astronaut is "suspended on wires" then how did they suspend the dust (or sand) on wires?
prosperomage 1 month ago
@snaredrum110 -- Yes. Deny what you can plainly see in front of you. That's the only kind of argument you have, isn't it?
It's just like trying to claim that you couldn't measure the length of his strides. Pathetic.
Do one of the following:
(1) Claim again "I can't see the dust rising and falling at the same speed as the astronaut" ... and get laughed at;
(2) Or explain how they suspended the dust on wires.
prosperomage 1 month ago
@snaredrum110 -- As I pointed out a long time ago: The dust is rising and falling at the same speed as the astronaut.
So: How did they suspend the dust on wires?
prosperomage 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snaredrum110 -- Some of them were 3 feet. Some were 4 or 5. And a few were about 6. But you need me to prove it?
Yeah, it really must suck to not be able to measure things for yourself.
Here -- try this: Post a video of anyone on Earth taking strides like that without even hardly bending their legs like he is doing, and let's compare it to this one.
(Hint: don't waste your time. You won't be able to do it.)
prosperomage 1 month ago
@snaredrum110 -- Some of them were 3 feet. Some were 4 or 5. And a few were about 6. But you need me to prove it?
Yeah, it really must suck to not be able to measure things for yourself.
Here -- try this: Post a video of anyone on Earth taking strides like that without even hardly bending their legs like he is doing, and let's compare it to this one.
(Hint: don't waste your time. You won't be able to do it.)
prosperomage 1 month ago
@snaredrum110 -- Yes. Everybody knows that when you double the camera speed, it is easy to take strides that are six feet for each step.
No ... he must have been suspended on wires, right? Nobody can take six-foot long jumps one right after another in a bulky suit without being suspended.
And look at the dust. It goes up and down the same time he does.
Hoax-theory cult member's obvious (and only) answer: Each dust particle was suspended on wires, too!!
prosperomage 1 month ago
nuestra tecnologia actual supera con creces a la de 1969, ¿porqué desde entonces nadie la ha vuelto a pisar?
mekare00 2 months ago
@mekare00 -- La tecnología aeroespacial de hoy es casi el mismo como lo fue en 1969. Los cohetes son los mismos. Lo principal que está más avanzada hoy en día son las computadoras más pequeñas y rápidas. El costo de volver a la Luna sería de alrededor de medio trillón de dólares. Y el público de EE.UU. no apoyará que el Congreso gaste el dinero.
prosperomage 2 months ago
Can anyone explain to me why he isn't floating up into space everytime he leaps?
b03y 2 months ago
@b03y -- The moon is about 1/6 the size of Earth. That means it has about 1/6 the gravity of Earth. On the moon, it is much easier to jump around because a 180 pound person with a 200 pound back pack like he has would only weigh (180 + 200) / 6 = about 60 pounds. But even though he'd only weigh 60 pounds, he still wouldn't "float up into space."
prosperomage 2 months ago
@prosperomage thank you sir.
b03y 2 months ago
there's the moonwalk and there's the moonjump.
thachthewandererable 2 months ago
love the song, may have to get it on itunes ;)
jeffreytangisdope 2 months ago
@snaredrum110 Sand? Its dust dude. Dust.
degenererad 3 months ago
another example of NASA shills slowing the film down, note the dust doesnt fly above his head like it should at 1/6th gravity, falls like sand on earth, which it is
pt1gard 3 months ago
@pt1gard
how THE FUCK do you know how high the dust should fly? Do you know how much upward force is being generated on it? No, you're just making shit up ....again.
Blahblobify 3 months ago
@Blahblobify ... hey shill nice to see you ... so i guess when things are 1/6th gravity it means shit should go just as far as they do on earth ... hey can you help me on this, why are there no tracks UNDER the LR in AS17-140-21354? thanks, Nasa :)
pt1gard 3 months ago
@pt1gard -- Hey ... if the astronaut can take 6-foot-long strides in this video, I guess you think he must be "hung on wires" right?
Well ... the dust goes up and down at the same time he does.
HOW did they hang the DUST on wires??
(And NO, in 1/6g the dust should NOT fly up above his head. It should travel out in front of him like it does because he's kicking it forward, not up.)
prosperomage 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pt1gard why didn't the Russians fake a moon landing too? they can go anytime.
echozgus 3 months ago
@pt1gard your a loser,a little douchbag who is hiding behind his keyboad saying its faked and all the rest,what kind of sand are you used to back home ? you havent a clue about space or the moon so go away and be a dweeb were it suits u best.your parents must be ashamed to have bred a little poisened dwarf
guitarnashelter 3 months ago
@guitarnashelter .... umm, lil testy, but thats ok 4 incher ... can you help me with my Colette video?
get back to me, mr grump.... LMFAO
PS that would be poisOned :)
pt1gard 3 months ago
@pt1gard -- So have you figured out how they had the astronaut take 6-foot-long strides in this video?
They hung him on wires maybe??
So, if they hung him on wires, then how did they make the rise & fall of the dust match the rise & fall of the astronaut? (Hint: Slow motion doesn't even start to explain it. Regardless of what speed the video is played at, if the astronaut is hung on wires, the rise & fall of the dust would not match his like it does.)
prosperomage 3 months ago 5
Notice that the parabolic motion of the dust as it rises and falls is consistent with the parabolic motion of the astronaut (use his feet as a point of reference).
So therefore: If the astronaut was "suspended on wires" in order to elongate his forward motion and "simulate" 1/6g gravity of the moon, then the DUST particles must ALSO have been suspended on wires. (Slow motion alone does NOT replicate this motion.)
The "wire suspension" of the so-called "hoax theory" is completely absurd.
prosperomage 3 months ago 13
Do you know the one type of comment more often seen on moon landing videos other than conspiracy theroies? Comments saying how much they hate people who type conspiracy theories. Just saying.
calculatethinkwonder 5 months ago
@calculatethinkwonder I hate them. They mock the courage these men had. It was not hollywood. There was a very real danger to these missions and they soil it with their worthless 9/11 crap no one cares about. They need to go back to play WoW or COD.
vampov 5 months ago
the song makes me wish i was an astronaut
Curruptid 5 months ago
Impossible
pokemonyourface 5 months ago
Para los seguidores de esta discusión en mi pueblo: me muestran su punto o se callan, no me importan sus opiniones si no son capaces de mostrar (no de decir) su punto.
Leivinn20 7 months ago
For followers of this discussion in my town: show me your point or shut up!, I do not care your opinions if you are not able to SHOW (don't say) your point.
Leivinn20 7 months ago
It's done in slow motion, on a set, on the earth. If it was really the moon, he could jump 6 feet high, weighing only the equivilent of about 36 earth pounds. Think about it.
john17972 8 months ago
@john17972, you should watch the mythbusters moonhoax special
n00baday 8 months ago
@john17972 think about the weight of his suit + the fact he can only just barely bend his legs due to said suit, now think about it.
rocksaw77 7 months ago
And now he's The Lonely Astronaut
MrMonkeymanablert 8 months ago
I want to go to the moon :/
squigledum 9 months ago 28
@squigledum itz lonely there
1Nekit1 6 months ago
@squigledum buy black ops.
TinUser3739 6 months ago
@squigledum moon=australia - kangaroo
1Nekit1 4 months ago
@squigledum
the only moon you will get is when your eMo boyfriend gives you roofies and you wake up with a sore ass
oxycodonez 2 months ago
@squigledum Soon, my son. Soon.
TheMeanSgtPlaysPiano 2 months ago
Americans paid billions of $ in history just to send astronauts to prance and kick pebbles on the moon. Hope they had a blast.
happynuts 10 months ago
@happynuts WE DID!!!! LOLOLROFLOLMAO I got your happy nuts right here.
pupilofreality 9 months ago
@happynuts It didn't cost that much. Walt Disney and Hollywood are earth-based operating at area 51
Chev4206 7 months ago
And here is Clinton's quote: (PART 1) "Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the Moon, beating by five months President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the Moon before the decade was out.
CONT
EmperorofCartoons 10 months ago
Clinton said it was a hoax. Read more.
potrodsas 10 months ago
@potrodsas Wrong. Clinton never said any such thing. You are taking the quote from his autobiography out of context. I'll try to get the entire quote up so people can see it in its original format.
EmperorofCartoons 10 months ago
The slow motion dust is so kool.
SlackerSlayer 10 months ago
lol the moon would be so fun. U could jump off a ledge like 17 feet high and land with no problem.
Georgeqaws 10 months ago
even when they do go down hill the camera has to be looking back up at them... why did they never stand on a hill and look down I wonder :)
KungFriedChicken 10 months ago
You should have put it in Fast Forward and added Benny Hill Music.
TheMeanSgtPlaysPiano 11 months ago
HOP BUNNY ! HOP!
TheDarkSoldier09 1 year ago
the music makes it 100000 times better.
socialite423fame 1 year ago
FLY ALL THAT WAY JUST TO ACT LIKE A KANGAROO
cashmonyxxx 1 year ago
It would be awesome if he fell n cracked his helmet
danielwcas 1 year ago
@danielwcas haha i would lol so hard
JackSmileyFace 1 year ago
Well I do not know,if I would be running on strange planet like this....with no fear of deep pockets, filled with cosmic dust of ions,where you could fall several hundred feet under and they would never find you. Try walking on the flower in flower mill storage. I do not really suggest that!
sonofsun4 1 year ago
That looks like so much fun
scrubjay93 1 year ago
What's up with the music? It don't fit.
GodLikeSeductions 1 year ago
if these so called astronauts were on the moon for real they surely wouldn't be jumping around like kangaroos.this would've jolted them straight into outer space -never to be seen again. DUH ! so any ways you'd never see what happened to them anyway because the dust they just stirred up with their moon boots wouldn't be falling back down to the ground.DUH as much dust as they kicked up it would look thicker than the bp oil spill. we need not look hard to tell this is FAKE wake up sheople. lol
1BUNNYMAXIMOUS 1 year ago
@1BUNNYMAXIMOUS One sixth gravity on the moon hero. No air on the moon to cause a cloud of dust DUH.
GodLikeSeductions 1 year ago
@1BUNNYMAXIMOUS the moon has some gravity you watch too much movies to hoot up you ned to have super legs and their no air for the dust to go up and it goes down becaus eof gravity remember this is a 1969 camera u cant see evry spec of detail
Womenftw12345 1 year ago
Look at the right of your screen.
Every little picture you see, is a video that says Apollo was a hoax.
There are many 1000s of videos like these in the Internet,and soon will be millions.
This is the reality and if you don't like it ,I'm going to use the historic phrase of J. Lundberg when he found the pictures are fake,and said : " Perhaps you should find Armstrong and ask him"..
potrodsas 1 year ago
@potrodsas
Didn't Armstrong try to fight some guy that asked him?
OpeAaron 1 year ago
@potrodsas why would they waste millions of dallors to send a rocket ship into space and not do anything if it was fake do you really think they would care to do it?
Womenftw12345 1 year ago
@Womenftw12345
You must be a very stupid person.
The billions(not fucking millions)went to their pockets you idiot!
potrodsas 1 year ago
@potrodsas who's pockets? didnt you see the video of the rocket ship they spent the money on? doesnt really affect any of are lifes if its fake or real you have the astronaunts to prove it dont understand why people automaticly say oh my god its fake! when u have no proof
Womenftw12345 1 year ago
@potrodsas -- Yes, the billions of dollars went into the pockets of the people in charge.
They never really developed the Saturn V rocket.
The dozen huge, skycraper sized Saturn V rockets never blasted off from Florida.
The hundreds of thousands of people who saw them in person are all fake.
The half-million people who worked on the project never got paid.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep
Even 30 years before Apollo the very same man who made these fucking Saturn buckets Von Braun was making rockets by the thousands.
Perhaps you should try your engineering talking with your grand mother to impress her-not me.
potrodsas 1 year ago
@potrodsas -- Yes.
I guess you are right.
My grand mother would be much more capable of understanding engineering than you are. Even though she's been dead for 30 years.
(Especially as I see you are only capable of answering one part of a post and not the other. Your stupid-ass statement cannot account for the pay going to the half-million people who worked on the project.)
.
Do you work for NASA? Your idiocy makes hoax-cult followers look stupid. Do they pay you for that?
nesokretep 1 year ago
@Womenftw12345 If they were at the moon, why isnt it some new hd videos of people there now? cause they cant get there.
Smudbitch 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Smudbitch Because they havent been back for decades. There has been no reason to. There is nothing there that is currently of value to us.
EmperorofCartoons 10 months ago
@potrodsas That doesn't prove that the landings were fake, that just proves that the number of stupid people is constantly increasing. Something most non-stupid people have been aware of for a while now.
EmperorofCartoons 10 months ago
this is called as moon dance.
flag swings in moon great.
five times they send man to moon and why they didn't go after 1970s to moon and now only they discovered water in moon without man in moon. if they send man to moon on 1969 means i'm sure now there will be one space station in moon , nothing is true
sounza 1 year ago
@sounza You realize, that a moon station is a mission which would last very long? You realize, that Apollo was a short trip? Building a station means, they have to develop new rocket systems, new equipment, new shielding for longer radiation exposure etc etc. And this has been going on. Skylab, the explorations and experiments done on the Shuttles, the ISS, they are all part of the plan to go back to the moon and to mars.
CHSarahBs 1 year ago
now speed it up x2 and you'll see its really some regular guy jumping in a suit (that doesnt have many points of articulation anyway)!
lordrevanchist 1 year ago
@lordrevanchist Yea thats just it. You need to speed it up in order to make it look like its fake. However, its regular speed, so its real.
ccrg109 1 year ago
@ccrg109 ok hold on. you're not listening to me now. HALVE THE speed of the footage, then you'll see its just a REGULAR guy, doing a REGULAR hopping technique with an obsolete spacesuit that has no joints of articulation. you dont know if the footage is real cos you werent there filming it! i bet you also think osama blew up the twin towers!!?? please dont be so ignorant
lordrevanchist 1 year ago
@lordrevanchist I love how idiots like you ASSume things just to justify your own thinking... Like it magically makes you right and everyone else wrong? Are you kidding me?... Grow up.
We were not talking about the WTC so how about you stop being so arrogant in making stupid assumptions.
Also, if you halved the video then it would still BE real. I can't claim to know what that would look like but, unless you can provide solid evidence to back it up, I'm not buying it.
ccrg109 1 year ago
@lordrevanchist You are right I wasn't there, but simple fact... Neither were you. :)
ccrg109 1 year ago
@lordrevanchist Actually the footage has been tested as authentic. The only way you could get the bunny hop like that was to actually have 1/6 gravity. Slowing down the footage of a 1 gravity bunny hop did not produce any convincing results, nor did wires.
They went to the moon.
Potrimpo 11 months ago
@Potrimpo ok. then explain to me how that piece of shit lunar lander made it back to earth in the 60s, when space shuttle Challenger couldnt even make it back in '03 (RIP to challenger crew). and explain why 'hitchcock' was stupid enough to use the SAME mountainous background in multiple locales in the footage reel.
lordrevanchist 10 months ago
@lordrevanchist It was the Columbia in 2003, Challenger was 1986. Because the Saturn 5 rocket didn't have that foam that knocked loose of the heat shields on the reentry vehicle like Columbia. And if go into the middle of the desert, you may find a similar Hitchcock blunder there.
Potrimpo 10 months ago
@lordrevanchist Also the accusation was Stanley Kubrick faked it. But can you prove that the alleged background of alleged location where they allegedly landed doesn't look the same from 2 or more different directions? You literally have to go to the moon to find out.
And can you explain the contradiction you conspiracy theorist made? How heat cannot be transferred in the vacuum of space, yet claim fake when the astronauts should have been fried in the sunlight while in a vacuum?
Potrimpo 10 months ago
@lordrevanchist The lunar lander never came back to Earth, unless you are referring to the infamous Apollo 13 incident, and in that case the crew used the lunar lander as temporary quarters until they arrived back at Earth, then they landed in the standard capsule (A lunar lander could never survive orbital reentry to the Earth's atmosphere.).
I dont get the Hitchcock reference.
EmperorofCartoons 10 months ago
@lordrevanchist Looking at it at half speed right now. Not seeing anything that would indicate its fake.
EmperorofCartoons 10 months ago
Due to there are a lot of probabilistic inconsistencies into modern theories, any analysis is very hard to do, I advice waiting for another missions of another countries for making the crossing data, in this case, the proposer (NASA) should wait because the events (Trips to Moon) belong to recent history and still applying of crossing data for validating is possible.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 The idea that NASA killed Gus Grissom to cover up the hoax is way more far-fetched and ridiculous, and you chose to believe that over the real stories of voyages to the moon? Have you actually done any unbiased research? Any attempt to check out the debunking of moon hoax? Are you still stuck on "no stars in the photos" or "breeze moving the flag"? You keep repeating yourself, yet you have no data or valid theory to back it up.
iakny 1 year ago
@iakny : My arguments can´t to prove that the USA wasn´t the first country which achieved Landing on the Moon, My concept framework is designed for using by common people. Beside to practice my English, I am helping to the Latin-Americans to know the kind of leadership used by USA. The alternative viewpoints help to obtain a profile of the USA leaders mind. In fact, my objective of researching is the leadership of USA. Trips to Moon are a sensitive point.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@iakny : In short: In short: I am not follower of conspiracy theory from FOX-TV, it´s quite stupid. In fact, it´s made to make NASA looks terrific. God bless you.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 OK, how about presenting some examples of "probabilistic inconsistencies"? Lets show us what you got. You seem like an interesting person. Show us some more.
iakny 1 year ago
@iakny : It´s simple point; if you project the actual intensity of meteor impacts for over 3 billion on years, and add the effect of igneous process during the forming of surface into 1/6 gravity, the astronauts shouldn´t take for known the solidness and flatness of Moon surface when they are walking or jumping around. However, that behavior is constant in all videos. I am not believe on large ages but they believe it and teaching it.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 They new how solid the moon was due to the results of the unmanned probes they sent there in preparation for the manned flights. You are correct that the "solidness" of the moon WAS a concern for NASA initially, hence why they did their best to acertain it beforehand.
EmperorofCartoons 10 months ago
@Leivinn20 However, do make sure that when presenting us with your hypothesis, you arrive with some ammunition, not some Google search result. Make sure you do everything possible to prove anything you want us to believe. For example, if your hypothesis is "well, the moon rocks could have been created in the labs", show us something to back it up. Don't just state that, since that would be an incomplete inquiry, akin to the devices used by the conspiracy theorists. Show research, not vocabulary.
iakny 1 year ago
@iakny: Forget FOX conspiracy theory because is trash. Perhaps it could be useful to measure the stupidity level in USA. God bless you.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 actually, knowing that nothing can change the minds of conspiracy theorists, I am just gonna move on and do better things, so enjoy your debates.
iakny 1 year ago
@iakny: Never mind. FOX conspiracy theory is garbage, it damages the brain.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 There is no inconsistency. There is no theory. There is the fact that man went to the moon and there are the idiots who don't believe this.
EmperorofCartoons 10 months ago 25
@EmperorofCartoons : I insist there is a lot of lost information, it would have been quite hard for a space probe "pick up" so detailed information, as the information known by astronauts apparently. Even they extracted Rover from lunar module and started y to drive around immediately, regardless by where they were. By the way, the theory about moon surface origins is still in discussion process at present.
Leivinn20 10 months ago
@Leivinn20 Why would you consider it hard for a probe, even from that era, to figure out the dynamics of the moon's surface? Granted the technology was more primitive than today but its was still well within the bounds of reason. And if they new the moon's structure dynamics why would they drive the rover around areas they knew to be safe (Which of course they knew because the landing zone had been well scouted in advance by probes and spectrography.).
EmperorofCartoons 10 months ago
@EmperorofCartoons : Per example: the ground radar tech didn't exist on the sixties. Any model of ground should be based on inferences, therefore, it was needed a "on site" verifying to make sure the ground had not irregularities under it. They just took Rover out and started to drive around. I know that the superficial uniformity insinuated certain uniformity under ground, however, the solidness is a different issue. Their behavior was clearly negligent.
Leivinn20 10 months ago
@Leivinn20 Considering that 5 lunar Surveyor probes, 7 Ranger probes and three prior Apollo missions had all determined the general consistency of the lunar surface, I don't see this as negligent at all.
But sure, maybe they should have walked around for an hour with a pole just to check the Rover doesn't get bogged. That makes plenty of sense.
krisdevalle 10 months ago
@EmperorofCartoons : Let me show you my point using an example: Imagine you belong to first mission to Mars, Would you extract a vehicle from spacecraft such as Rover and start to drive around immediately as shown on these videos?...when you visit a new area on the Earth such Amazon river, Sahara desert and others, don't you do a exploratory round in first place?...
Leivinn20 10 months ago
@Leivinn20 -- Yes, you explore first.
You explore by driving around.
Don't pretend that exploration should not involve risk. That would be silly.
nesokretep 7 months ago
@nesokretep : If you were alone in the amazon river region, would you explore the ground how astronaut on this video do it?. The point is not "had any man on the moon?"; instead the point is: are there valid reasons which induce doubts to the common citizens?.
Leivinn20 7 months ago
@Leivinn20 -- If the question is: "If I were alone in the amazon river region, would I walk around as though the ground might swallow me up at any moment?"
Then the answer is: No. Of course not.
I would walk (or drive) around, doing my exploration in a relatively expedient manner, knowing that the ground generally does not just open up and swallow people without telltales signs of water-covered quick sand or something.
nesokretep 7 months ago
@nesokretep : Where was the verifying device of ground when this video was recorded?. Keep in mind: the point is not "had any man on the moon", instead the point is: are there valid reasons which induce doubts to the common citizens?. Let me suggest you a exercise: watch the first trip to moon video, then, make a survey or poll: ask to your neighbors. "how many elements shown on this video can't be made by means of movie technology from the sixties?".
Leivinn20 7 months ago
Comment removed
Leivinn20 7 months ago
@nesokretep According to you, did I get show my point?. I admit that I'm interested on breaking of the american psychological influence on southamerican citizens mind, therefore, I need show american psique in front of southamerican citrizens.
Leivinn20 7 months ago
@Leivinn20 -- In English the word is spelled "psyche" (with the same root spelling as "psychological").
And yes, I agree that America exerts too much of some of the wrong kinds of influences on the rest of the world, especially through our horribly vapid entertainment industry, as well as too much use of our military.
nesokretep 7 months ago
@nesokretep : Exactly, it's need to decrease US influence on underdeveloped countries, even psychological aspects. Per example: The US economic system is based on "private enterprise is by nature more efficient than any kind of public administration", and in fact, such system worked fine for US, however, third world entrepreneurs preferred migrate their capitals unto US, in consequence, a growing of communist movements occurred, which are based on public opinion.
Leivinn20 7 months ago
@nesokretep : Thanks for show me my spelling mistake.
Leivinn20 7 months ago
@nesokretep : should read: ... psique in front of southamerican CTIZENS....
Leivinn20 7 months ago
@Leivinn20 -- But, frankly, I don't think you're on the right track with this kind of questioning about the danger of the exploration.
Of course it was dangerous. Men often die in the first exploration of a new place. For example, Columbus lost a ship (his largest, the Santa Maria) and, eventually, 40 of his men, on his first voyage to the Americas.
Most ground is fairly solid. There are only a few kinds where it is liable to open up, most notably ice bridges. The moon has none of that.
nesokretep 7 months ago
@nesokretep : My point is more related to perception than scientific and technical questions.
Leivinn20 7 months ago
@Leivinn20 -- I do not know of any large, flat, dry areas on Earth where it is unsafe to drive a vehicle because the ground is not solid enough. I suppose it is possible, but it is very rare. And so I don't think there would be cause to not drive pretty much anywhere that it is flat on the moon.
(If you want to attack the influence of the American psyche on the rest of the world, I would suggest attacking our horrible entertainment, our finance, and the stupidity of our foreign policy.)
nesokretep 7 months ago
@nesokretep : I don't want to discuss about technical questions, however, as far as I know several theories about origin of moon surface are being discussed yet. According to me, it's not necessarily true that any surface originated by meteor impacts and igneous processes does not imply certain risks. Keep in mind. my point is perception.
Leivinn20 7 months ago
@Leivinn20 -- Yes. There are risks. There are huge risks.
In exploration, sometimes people die.
That's just the way it goes.
nesokretep 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nesokretep : in fac, this is the point: "I want to go to the moon AGAIN :/"
Leivinn20 7 months ago
Clinton's Quote part 2: The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that 'them television fellers' could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time."
Nowhere does Clinton even hint the landings were fake or that he believes they are fake.
EmperorofCartoons 10 months ago
@EmperorofCartoons It's because Fox [News] and some stupid fuck named Bart Sibrel said they didn't, everybody starts believing their half-completed research
nitroxide2011 6 months ago
@EmperorofCartoons And then there are the closed-minded people who think that the words "theory" and "fact" are interchangeable.
f56789123 6 months ago
@EmperorofCartoons yer an idiot by yer own definition, watch the shadow angle change midway thru the vid. are you blind ignorant or just stupid?
maxwellmaxter 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@maxwellmaxter "are you blind ignorant or just stupid?"
the only things that change are the slope of the terrain, and the fact that he's coming down the hill.
ps, learn to spell: you're, your, and through.
agentofvengeance 3 months ago
Coming…The human being fear to leave out basis of its own worldview ((perhaps they are a little afraid). The evidence from trips to Moon have this kind of problem. By the way, the biggest southamerican problem is not intellectual, it´s moral. We can build a nuclear submarine since decades ago…But we have problems for reaching a agreement each other.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
I don´t know how big is your knowledge about scientific methodology, as theoretical exercise; try to compare the probability for forming of life by means of chance against the current standard time scale, I hope you realize that the dinosaurs couldn´t have been here 65 millions of years ago. These circumstances are probabilistic inconsistencies, which are due to in several occasions to worldview of researchers. The evidence from trips to Moon have this kind of problem.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
The probabilistic inconsistencies of theory are due a lot of times to the researchers deny to abandon the presuppositions which form the basis of their worldview. The trip to Moon are fresh or recent events, the common people still can to choose the favorite method for verifying, such as: verify technological level of NASA on sixties, waiting for new missions, crossing data from several sources, and another ones. Demanding to common people believe on NASA version of Trips to Moon is anethic.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 what have you got, a thesaurus with you?
They landed on the moon. Don't be an idiot.
Here is another point everyone misses. If they were to fake the landings, they wouldn't have bothered with LLRV training. That thing almost killed Neil Armstrong. Given the dangers, the astronauts wouldn't have agreed to train on it if they weren't really going to the moon.
Problem with people like you is that you don't understand science, and you never will.
iakny 1 year ago
@iakny: I am common person, I am trying to show view point of common people. Keep in mind or take account (how ever you say it), there are several hypotheses, for example: wanted NASA showing to Soviets its most sophisticated technology on the sixties?, can any astronaut walks around on the Moon without take account solidness of ground like videos show it?. The scientific method requires making several hypotheses. About "my thesaurus", I am learning English, and I hate poor lexical.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
I admit that several modern theories have intrinsic inconsistencies from view point of probability calculus, this phenomenon occurs on videos of trips to Moon, evolution theory and anothers. The astronauts behavior show they take for granted the ground´s features such as solidness and flatness, it looks little inconsistent in relation with the forming processes of Moon surface, such as: igneous activity and meteor impacts.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
when they didn't use wires they used slow motion frames.
EGMAG 1 year ago
Let me give you an advice: the validating method by excellence is the "crossing data"(comparison between different data sources), it´s advisable waiting until get data coming from another missions, I am sure that the great media of USA will earn quite a lot of money when foreign missions reach the Moon, the media will do it by means of making comparisons.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@pygar2. i'm tired of this. there has never been a suggestion by anyone other than yourself that the 'rock' that the dutch subjected to analysis was anything other than the sample provided by nasa. nasa are bent. they lie all the time. get over it.
sizzlinsausage 1 year ago
@sizzlinsausage Still waiting for that NASA photo... after all, all the rocks were photographed, and the donation ceremony is bound to have been filmed and photographed. Probably even a nice closeup of the rock in the papers the next day. There has never been any suggestion by anyone other than an Apollo denier, that NASA gave out petrified wood as a moonrock.
Pygar2 1 year ago
i can't post links here, but a simple search of the BBC website will show all you gullible mugs who still believe in the moon landings myth that the 'moon rock' that the americans graciously gave to the dutch turned out to be petrified wood. lots of lucky countries were given 'moon rock' by the americans, but thus far only the dutch have had the temerity to call the americans bluff by testing theirs. how unsporting of them...
sizzlinsausage 1 year ago
@sizzlinsausage Translation: someone stole the Dutch moon rock, and left a piece of petrified wood in its place, presumably because it was the least moonrock-like rock available. Pranks are no fun if the victim never knows about it. Unless you can show me an official NASA photo of that rock, and/or of its being handed to the Dutch by NASA, there is no reason to connect NASA to that rock..
Pygar2 1 year ago
Dude,they are hopping,not running
jlyh55 1 year ago
@jlyh55 The "kangaroo hop" is the easiest way to move around on the Moon. Their leg movement was severely restricted by their suits. These were many layers thick, and not unlike a tire in construction.
Pygar2 1 year ago
I'd say 1/6 gravity would have been great craic in the lunar lander without the heavy suits on them!!
buller2400 1 year ago
@buller2400 Just their luck the available floor space was about like two phone booths!
I wonder how people in the future will get across the idea of a small, SRO place, when the last of the phone booths vanishes?
Pygar2 1 year ago
Observe careful: the astronaut takes for granted the ground is solid enough but we can´t to observe any evidence of previous inspection, in addition, the landing gear of Spacecraft was designed for soft surface.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 Solid rock seems to be just under the surface, everywhere on the Moon we've been. The dust pits feared in Fifties SF, show no sign of existing. The landing pads were about a yard wide, supporting a 3-ton vehicle- so each pad carried less than a ton, over an area a yard wide.
Pygar2 1 year ago
@Pygar2 I am not astrophysics expert and neither special effect, therefore, I can´t to denied or affirm all data from trip to moon are real o false. I only said: At seems, the astronauts have knowledge about ground solidness regardless where they walk or jump, but I can´t observe evidence of any previous exploration. Keep in mind, the historic event haven´t been validated by other country.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Pygar2 Besides, your observation is valid, apparently it´s very improbable forming of a uniform enough dust layer , over all if we are based on the assumption that the Moon surface was originated by means of igneous processes and meteor impacts either...my first language is spanish, I call this "Pedro por su casa" argument, it means about: "Pedro by/at home" argument. The english is a great idiom.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 The various impacts and igneous events make rock. the constant changes in temperature, plus the slow sandblasting of billions of years of micrometeorites, powders the top layer. There is no liquid to make ground anything but solid-- what else *could* it be, but solid? What else could be under the powder layer? He is simply loping down a hill, no worse than any other hill the Apollo astronauts had to deal with. Why would there be any problem with this?
Pygar2 1 year ago
@Pygar2 : Each day I am more convinced. It´s necessary validating process by other sources, Sir Francis Bacon made the most important contribution in the history the west science; the scientific method. I think, the English is the language of the science and madness. Even today, the americans use this video during to convinced to southamericans they won the space race during the sixties.
Leivinn20 1 year ago