astrophysicists typically estimate the intrinsic power generation of these bursts by assuming the inverse-square law and the values they get are off the charts. That's the only application of the inverse square law when it comes to gamma ray bursts. Is there something you don't understand about that or do I have to post it again?
Some people don't get it or are willfully ignorant. astrophysicists typically estimate the intrinsic power generation of these bursts by assuming the inverse-square law and the values they get are off the charts. That's the only application of the inverse square law when it comes to gamma ray bursts. Is there something you don't understand about that or do I have to post it again? Gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law. How many times do I have to say it?
@Daddyo930 - You're the one who's willfully ignorant. "Astrophysicists typically estimate the intrinsic power generation of these bursts by assuming the inverse-square law", what part don't you understand? It clearly says the inverse-square law IS applied to GRBs. The article you cut & paste from speculates that it MIGHT be overstating the power of a GRB if faster than light speeds are involved, and so the inverse law MAY apply instead, which still means 10^54 ergs here is impossible
astrophysicists typically estimate the intrinsic power generation of these bursts by assuming the inverse-square law and the values they get are off the charts. That's the only application of the inverse square law when it comes to gamma ray bursts. Is there something you don't understand about that or do I have to post it again? Gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law. How many times do I have to say it?
If gamma ray bursts emissions are isotropic (uniform in every direction) then a burst passing through this system would have the same energy passing through this solar system (using the fireball shock model) as it had at the source of emission. The entity calling him or herself Tweekerhead needs a little help understanding gamma ray bursts. Understandable as they are still being studied.
For gamma ray bursts, astrophysicists typically estimate the intrinsic power generation of these bursts by assuming the inverse-square law, and the values they get are off the charts. But if FTL effects are involved, the inverse-square law might be overestimating the power and astronomers should really be using a simple inverse law.
@Daddyo930 - From your cut 'n paste post, you confirm what we've been telling you. Quote "For GRBs, astrophysicists TYPICALLY estimate the intrinsic power generation of these bursts by assuming the INVERSE-SQUARE LAW". That contradicts your claim that the ISL is never applied to GRBs! Then it says if (the key word being 'IF') faster than light effects are involved, they should use a simple inverse law, which STILL means energy reduces over distance, so 10^54 erg HERE is impossible! :)
@MTMind2 astrophysicists typically estimate the intrinsic power generation of these bursts by assuming the inverse-square law and the values they get are off the charts. That's the only application of the inverse square law when it comes to gamma ray bursts. Is there something you don't understand about that or do I have to post it again? Gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law.
Is there anyone out there reading this who knows anything about astrophysics? If there is, would you please inform the reading audience that gamma ray bursts are NOT, repeat not, subject to the inverse square law? Trying to discuss in a rational manner astrophysics with a sophomore. HELP!
@Daddyo930 It doesn't matter if GRB's are or are not subject to I~1/d².
The paper you posted the link to, Peter Mészáros' paper says that only 0.5MeV have been detected from GRB's in this solar system, which is a lot of energy, considering the age & distance traveled.
Oh help! This guy Tweekerhead keeps insisting that gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law. His stupidity is not contagious thankfully. HELP!
Will someone please tell that fool Tweekerhead that gamma ray bursts are NOT subject to the inverse square law? He's really making himself look like a dunce here. HELP!
Would someone please help this poor fool out here? His name, well he has many names, but this particular personality of the entity who calls him or herself Tweekerhead seems to think that gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law. After being asked to provide a peer reviewed paper that says this, he refuses to acknowledge his or her error. HELP!
This doesn't even begin to convince me that he isn't on the moon. It seems to me that some people just want to believe it was a hoax. It's way more interesting that way. I'm just upset that it's not made of cheese.
I hate all you "Moon Hoax" theorists coming up with some random BS. Just because he opened his heat visor for a minute doesn't mean if he was on the moon his face would be fried. You guys are so stupid. He's just exposed to some radiation.
maybe you should finally look into the BELL aerospace company and THEIR PROJECT THE LLRV Bell aerospace didn't need any help from the BRITS dude. Buy a clue you complete FAILURE
maybe you should finally look into the BELL aerospace company and THEIR PROJECT THE LLRV Bell aerospace didn't need any help from the BRITS dude ! WOW your stupid. Buy a clue TROLL BOY.
maybe you should finally look into the BELL aerospace company and THEIR PROJECT THE LLRV Bell aerospace didn't need any help from the BRITS dude. Buy a clue FAILURE TROLL BOY..
maybe you should finally look into the BELL aerospace company and THEIR PROJECT THE LLRV Bell aerospace didn't need any help from the BRITS dude. Buy a clue FAILURE TROLL BOY..
maybe you should finally look into the BELL aerospace company and THEIR PROJECT THE LLRV Bell aerospace didn't need any help from the BRITS dude. Buy a clue FAILURE TROLL BOY..
Weaker, I think I will go look up some apollo astronauts spelling mistakes so I can prove they were never astronauts and never went to the moon ! Complete logic misfire Loser ! FAIL
Weaker, I think I will go look up some apollo astronauts spelling mistakes so I can prove they were never astronauts and never went to the moon ! Complete logic misfire Loser ! FAIL
BTW I see you STILL can't spell the word Hasselblad yet ? What a LOSER.. Wow you are obviously NOT a photographer and never got a BA in that field. FAIL ! LOL!
Weaker believed the LEM was designed by Rolls Royce that's what a simpleton he is. I had to correct this retard over and over again till he finally got is facts straight Daddy-0
@stalkervision Nope..sorry ....That's not what I said moron.
LLRV was a modifed design of the British "Flying Bedstead" w/ Rolls engines. It flew in 1954.
Coming from someone so obtuse, who claimed to be a professional photographer and then preceded to spell it "Hassabald" ..I can see how you could make that mistake.
The solar constant is 1.361 kilowatts per square meter.1.361 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.95 calories per minute per square centimeter, or 1.95 langleys (Ly) per minute. 1 watt (W) is equal to one joule per second (J/s or m2kgs-3). 1361 watts is 1361 joules per second. 1361 joules per second = 13610000000 ergs per second. 1 erg = 6.24150974 × 10^11 electron volts. Is this correct? Do the conversion yourself and see if it checks out. We never left low earth orbit then and we can't do it now.
1 light source sun . so it is logical any variation must mean the light is inside his helmet, judging from the the clash directions of shadows and light in this video, especialy the backwards shadows on the rocks. Unless Nasa did a hoax?? Hmmm!
@EGMAG First of all, I don't deal with anything except radiation issues. If you want to talk about light, go talk to someone else. If you don't know anything about radiation, here's a tool: Elements of Astrophysics. University of Hawaii. Google it.
Oopps! Well excuuuuseme! I thought that with a handle name like Daddyo you had a bit of a sense of humor and got my puns! Oh well, if your so smart about radiation you must know the first thing they teach in Physics class about light is the ''safer'' light from the sun, which is "radiating" the earth. I referred to that basic form of radiation in this video because there are no other meaningful forms of radiation ''at the moment'' in the above video!
@EGMAG So you don't really know anything then. The solar constant contains radiation in the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Now, what percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation? If you can't answer, that's fine.
@Daddyo930 what percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation? <<
Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is ... 81 percent of which comes from natural sources of radiation. The remaining 19 percent results ... solar radiation, ...
@Tweekerhead The definition of isotropic is uniformity in all directions. What's your definition of isotropic? I told you. I'm done. Your too stupid to admit your wrong and move on.
I know you'd like to get away from me like the plague, most feel that way about me, something facts that scare them, as you are of me now, but I have to ask in all this drama of yours, how are GRB's a prohibitive aspect of space travel?
Doodlyo's interpretation of the solar constant is way off, of course you wouldn't know that.
X rays are among the LEAST powerful forms of radiation, being only 1/10th the strength of beta radiation, only 1/20th the strength of alpha. And yet, Alpha and Beta take up 88% of solar radiation, and are completely blockable with plastic & aluminum.
As far as flares, an X5 flare has a peak X-ray intensity of 5e-4 W/m². So that one's busted. GL....lol Kaiser!! lol
@EGMAG Yeah man, some of those radio waves oscillate in waves as big as buildings.
Going down from the infra red into the ultraviolet, then X-ray, then gamma ray, they become smaller & smaller, until they oscillate in widths smaller than an atom.
They measure them in nanometers, a millionth of a millimeter.
.
Great stuff, if you keep reading, you may find that radiation was NOT a prohibitive barrier for the Moon landings ;-)
How come the sun is clearly reflected directly off the front of his helmet and yet there are shadows off the background rocks going in the wrong direction? Somebody blowing the whistle on this?
They actually let the public experience different kinds of weight environments in a specially built airplane by riding on parabolic arcs in the air; that can probably suffice your greatest longings for the moon. ^_^
@luckylongarm1 OK, and what about it? Except that's sad that the politicians cut the fundings for manned space programs, so new lunar flights will probably not happen in several decades.
On the sunny side of things on the moon the temp gets up to 250 F. in the shade it varies from minus 100 to minus 250. How in the heck do you build a rubber suit that comes with this, plus deadly doses of gamma and neutron radiation. and this guy has his visor up?
@Heath75032 A "rubber suit"? Why don't You check facts before You write things that will risk You to make a fool of yourself?
Also: "this guy" has only his outer, goldplated visor up. Quite possible for brief moments, just like You don't always use sunglasses in bright sunlight.
There are so many fools who don't believe. Fact is these videos are stunning proof and despite America's many flaws we are, always have been and always will be the greatest nation with the greatest minds. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!
Very sad that there are so many idiots here who are very self impressed by their own misguided impressions that their own opinions add up to anything worth listening to.
Very sad that there are so many idiots here who are very self impressed by their own misguided impressions that their own opinions add up to anything worth listening to.
me i don't care and i totally believe that the apollo missions brought man on earth and back. And i appreciate the work done by the astronaut /cosmonaut /scientist indifferent of their nationality who put their lives on the line during each mission for the embetterment of humanity. Videos like this can easily be faked by pessimist, incapable and unscrupulous people. I instead would like to pay tribute to all those who died and those who landed on moon during the apollo mission era.
You're not counting on how restrictive these suits were and difficult to move in. On earth they would barely be able to walk. They ARE jumping about 6 times higher than they could on earth.
There is a video of one of the astronauts jumping for height, he got up several feet before almost falling over and quitting .
The only thing seriously wrong is the typical short sighted narrow mindedness of hoax advocates, they don't think things through and are full of shit.
@TheJomogogo "They ARE jumping about 6 times higher than they could on earth."
Then there's about 3 problems here:
1.They need to work on leg strength if 6x the jumping height on Earth on the moon is only 12 inches. That would mean they can only jump 2 inches on Earth which would mean they are sickly dying or are not as fit as portrayed to be.
2.The mass of the suit may make jumping harder, but they still should jump higher.
3.I can jump 45 inches on Earth at 13. 6 X 45 = 270.
@jbyeats More proof of BS of the "moon landing". Neil Armstrong weighed like 150-170lbs and adding a 185lb space suit he'd weigh at least 335lbs on Earth or 55lbs on the moon.
If one weighed 55lbs on the moon, an adult, especially a fit one like astronauts are, they should be able to jump well over 15 inches with ease.
@AndyHarglesis The usual argument without any clue of physics. How high would he jump on Earth? Let us say 10 centimeters. The weight changes, but the mass is still the same. John Youngs salute jump was measured with 60 to 65 centimeters. This is sex times higher as expected on Earth.
@CHSarahBs I know that I'm right. That's where YOU are wrong, my friend. :P
Whether you're in U.S., Russia, Lithuania, China, Sweden, Germany, Japan, Italy, Cuba, Mexico, South America, Canada, Iceland, etc. you're still ALL considered humans and life forms in our planet Earth.
Our planet Earth is EXACTLY where the moon landing has been hoaxed and it has been hoaxed in U.S., North America.
Our country here, U.S., has the wits and power/money to come up with lies.
@AndyHarglesis Learn anything you can learn, you need it really. I see that you are wrong, when you can not do a simple calculation. And I see that you are wrong, when you need the help of hairspitting, when you are cornered.
And by the way, to have a friend like you should be irritating. I am lucky to know, that my friends prefer, similar to me, real scientific proof, not baseless assumptions and rantings from a YT-poser, who needs this medium to feel worth ;)
@AndyHarglesis You know everything? So why do you make such silly mistakes? But I will stand this post as it is. A proof for your gigantic superiority-complex ;) This must be a sad life but it is yours. Have fun with it, little boy ;)
@CHSarahBs I have new vids coming out that have REAL, irrefutable proof of the moon landing hoax and even Bin Laden's fake death lie by the government. It all comes together, the pieces, in my next coming two vids.
@AndyHarglesis Is there a different methodology used in conspiracy circles?You appear to announce everything as "guaranteed proof" yet offer no evidence.Real proof is traceable to a source,and the source should not merely be another twoofers wild accusation
@AndyHarglesis What? How is that relevant to my question? How typical of a twoofer to assume that anyone who dares to disagrees with their inane worldview believes everything govts say1 Everyone knows that govts distort facts to suit their political viewpoint
@CHSarahBs Silly mistakes? I have yet to make a single mistake at all, ever.
If you mean failure to instruct 100% correctly and with right wording, then yeah, "mistakes" might fit there.
But everything I've been saying and all the information in my vids are perfectly accurate. You're just too fed up with government standards and science to really see the facts here.
I advise everyone here to watch my videos so they can see the truth and NOT what the government claims the truth is.
@AndyHarglesis Again, you made a big mistake by ignoring a basic law of physics. Weight can change, but not the mass. The mass of an object on Earth is the same as on Moon. An astronaut with backpack (together 180 kg) can jump 10 to 15 cm on Earth. On Moon (30 kg but the same mass) he jumped 60 to 65 cm. Simple calculation and Newtons law. You missed or ignored both ;)
@AndyHarglesis When saying " I have yet to make a single mistake,ever" do you mean since you dived into the wild and wacky world of the apollo-hoax society,or since you first drew breath?How are things going with the "proof" videos? Changed the world much? I sat through the first video and "facts" are very thin on the ground,rather it consists of opinions with no reference to source material or evidence
@jenleex -- No. Jaxa does not say that there is "nothing at the landing sites." Multiple countries have confirmed that there IS something at the landing sites. And THAT is the real "end of story."
And no ... you cannot jump 18 inches after flexing by only 6 inches downward as you see the astronauts do. Sorry; you just can't.
@jenleex -- No. Jaxa does not say that there is "nothing at the landing sites." Multiple countries have confirmed that there IS something at the landing sites. And THAT is the real "end of story."
And no, you cannot jump 18 inches after flexing by only 6 inches downward as you see the astronauts do. Sorry; you just can't.
Is it not possible to take your sun glasses off for a minute when you are in the snow? The astronauts were not in nearly as much glare as someone in the snow is.
I have great respect for these men who had the gut's to do something grand as this..you weed smoking losers who like to pretend it was fake need to get job's and quit being dead weight to society.
oow dear "Houston we have a problem" the Moons's visual magnitude is +0.21 the Earths is -3.86 and the Astronot is looking directly into the SUN LoL ... NASA once again you've screwed up
TURNS SIDE TO SIDE INTO THE LIGHT AND ONLY THE PART OF THE VISOR THAT IS UP ABOVE HIS EYES SHOWS ANY KIND OF REFLECTION ..... APPEARS AS THOUGH HIS FACE IS NAKED
if they faked the moon landings why wouldn't they cut and reshoot this with his visor down? If it's faked it's not like they would have been filming live
i am almost certain he was taking a poop and his visor was up so he may want to put it down out in the moonshine. dig a hole take a poop in it. yea, thats what he is doing.
@SUPER3ARIANARA a yo man, picking on gypsies is so 1900's. And I wasn't making fun of your English, just correcting the error. No need to get all bitchy about it.
This has been flagged as spam show
astrophysicists typically estimate the intrinsic power generation of these bursts by assuming the inverse-square law and the values they get are off the charts. That's the only application of the inverse square law when it comes to gamma ray bursts. Is there something you don't understand about that or do I have to post it again?
Daddyo930 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people don't get it or are willfully ignorant. astrophysicists typically estimate the intrinsic power generation of these bursts by assuming the inverse-square law and the values they get are off the charts. That's the only application of the inverse square law when it comes to gamma ray bursts. Is there something you don't understand about that or do I have to post it again? Gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law. How many times do I have to say it?
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 You just transferred what it is with you...You are willfully ignorant.
How many times ..how many people have tried to help you, and you discredit them or dismiss them as fools?
You read over the top of these words or what?
Only 0.5MeV have been detected here from Gamma Ray Bursts.
Only 0.5MeV have been detected here from Gamma Ray Bursts.
Only 0.5MeV have been detected here from Gamma Ray Bursts.
Only 0.5MeV have been detected here from Gamma Ray Bursts.
You're a fool.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daddyo930 - You're the one who's willfully ignorant. "Astrophysicists typically estimate the intrinsic power generation of these bursts by assuming the inverse-square law", what part don't you understand? It clearly says the inverse-square law IS applied to GRBs. The article you cut & paste from speculates that it MIGHT be overstating the power of a GRB if faster than light speeds are involved, and so the inverse law MAY apply instead, which still means 10^54 ergs here is impossible
MTMind2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Possible Models of Gamma Ray Bursts
Inverse Squared Law places huge constraints on total energy
Emission is probably beamed in jets
Beaming reduces total energy needed
Will someone please help this lamebrain out?
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Finish the discussion, we'll see who the 'lame-brain" is here in this debate.
Go back and read the paper you posted dolt. It says the opposite of what you're saying.
0.5MeV is all that has been detected from GRB's remember?
Or didn't you get that far in Mészáros' paper?
Anyway thanks for posting your opinion, it's wrong and it makes you look real stupid.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
astrophysicists typically estimate the intrinsic power generation of these bursts by assuming the inverse-square law and the values they get are off the charts. That's the only application of the inverse square law when it comes to gamma ray bursts. Is there something you don't understand about that or do I have to post it again? Gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law. How many times do I have to say it?
Daddyo930 1 month ago
If gamma ray bursts emissions are isotropic (uniform in every direction) then a burst passing through this system would have the same energy passing through this solar system (using the fireball shock model) as it had at the source of emission. The entity calling him or herself Tweekerhead needs a little help understanding gamma ray bursts. Understandable as they are still being studied.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 No this entity' doesn't need help in understanding GRB's.
Tweekerhead has been studying this 'stuff' since the early 70's.
Go back & read Peter Mészáros' paper carefully this time.
If GRB's are isotropic then how could they not be subject to I~1/d²?
What you're assuming is impossible.
There is no way 10^54erg.at the event would transfer to 10^54erg. in this solar system.
Peter Mészáros claims only 0.5MeV was detected in this solar system.
0.5MeV 0.5MeV 0.5MeV that's all.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 How's it going getting anyone else to agree with your retarded claims?
You've been working on this for months.
Maybe it would help you if you ran it by a real physicist and then you could have some peer-review to back it all up.
I mean, if you know you are right, then it can't hurt.
krisdevalle 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 If 10^54 erg. was detected here in this solar system, we wouldn't be having this ball bustin party & no Y-Tube.
If a GRB went off say..in our arm of the galaxy,the Orion Arm, we would fry, then you'd have your reason for space flight being impossible.
A GRB at 6,500 light yrs.away in the Perseus Arm it could be brighter than 10 Suns!
.
What you've implied is laughable, not only because of the magnitude of stupidity but the paper you posted said only 0.5MeV was detected.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
Possible Models of Gamma Ray Bursts
Inverse Squared Law places huge constraints on total energy
Emission is probably beamed in jets
Beaming reduces total energy needed
Will someone please help this lamebrain out?
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Yes please. he doesn't seem able to "elucidate" these simple concepts.
stalkervision 1 month ago
For gamma ray bursts, astrophysicists typically estimate the intrinsic power generation of these bursts by assuming the inverse-square law, and the values they get are off the charts. But if FTL effects are involved, the inverse-square law might be overestimating the power and astronomers should really be using a simple inverse law.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Yes intrinsic power of 10^54 erg. as in at the event, NOT in our solar system.
Only 0.5MeV has been detected. That's what the paper you posted the link to says.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 - From your cut 'n paste post, you confirm what we've been telling you. Quote "For GRBs, astrophysicists TYPICALLY estimate the intrinsic power generation of these bursts by assuming the INVERSE-SQUARE LAW". That contradicts your claim that the ISL is never applied to GRBs! Then it says if (the key word being 'IF') faster than light effects are involved, they should use a simple inverse law, which STILL means energy reduces over distance, so 10^54 erg HERE is impossible! :)
MTMind2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MTMind2 astrophysicists typically estimate the intrinsic power generation of these bursts by assuming the inverse-square law and the values they get are off the charts. That's the only application of the inverse square law when it comes to gamma ray bursts. Is there something you don't understand about that or do I have to post it again? Gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
Is there anyone out there reading this who knows anything about astrophysics? If there is, would you please inform the reading audience that gamma ray bursts are NOT, repeat not, subject to the inverse square law? Trying to discuss in a rational manner astrophysics with a sophomore. HELP!
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 It doesn't matter if GRB's are or are not subject to I~1/d².
The paper you posted the link to, Peter Mészáros' paper says that only 0.5MeV have been detected from GRB's in this solar system, which is a lot of energy, considering the age & distance traveled.
What's not to understand.
I would prefer not to use insults this time
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
Another whining hoaxtard coward running away crying victory after he tipped the board over.
Are you ever right' about anything related to the astrophysics stuff.
I knew you were a poser from the get-go ...Poser......
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
Oh help! This guy Tweekerhead keeps insisting that gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law. His stupidity is not contagious thankfully. HELP!
Daddyo930 1 month ago
Will someone please tell that fool Tweekerhead that gamma ray bursts are NOT subject to the inverse square law? He's really making himself look like a dunce here. HELP!
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Show a peer reviewed paper that says GRB's are NOT subject to I~1/d².
Don't submit Mészáros' paper again, because it doesn't back up what you claim, you were wrong again.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
Would someone please help this poor fool out here? His name, well he has many names, but this particular personality of the entity who calls him or herself Tweekerhead seems to think that gamma ray bursts are subject to the inverse square law. After being asked to provide a peer reviewed paper that says this, he refuses to acknowledge his or her error. HELP!
Daddyo930 1 month ago
This doesn't even begin to convince me that he isn't on the moon. It seems to me that some people just want to believe it was a hoax. It's way more interesting that way. I'm just upset that it's not made of cheese.
MrWilliamPorter 1 month ago
I hate all you "Moon Hoax" theorists coming up with some random BS. Just because he opened his heat visor for a minute doesn't mean if he was on the moon his face would be fried. You guys are so stupid. He's just exposed to some radiation.
Mike2020mike2020 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
maybe you should finally look into the BELL aerospace company and THEIR PROJECT THE LLRV Bell aerospace didn't need any help from the BRITS dude. Buy a clue you complete FAILURE
stalkervision 1 month ago
maybe you should finally look into the BELL aerospace company and THEIR PROJECT THE LLRV Bell aerospace didn't need any help from the BRITS dude ! WOW your stupid. Buy a clue TROLL BOY.
stalkervision 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
maybe you should finally look into the BELL aerospace company and THEIR PROJECT THE LLRV Bell aerospace didn't need any help from the BRITS dude. Buy a clue FAILURE TROLL BOY..
stalkervision 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
maybe you should finally look into the BELL aerospace company and THEIR PROJECT THE LLRV Bell aerospace didn't need any help from the BRITS dude. Buy a clue FAILURE TROLL BOY..
stalkervision 1 month ago
maybe you should finally look into the BELL aerospace company and THEIR PROJECT THE LLRV Bell aerospace didn't need any help from the BRITS dude. Buy a clue FAILURE TROLL BOY..
stalkervision 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Weaker, I think I will go look up some apollo astronauts spelling mistakes so I can prove they were never astronauts and never went to the moon ! Complete logic misfire Loser ! FAIL
stalkervision 1 month ago
Weaker, I think I will go look up some apollo astronauts spelling mistakes so I can prove they were never astronauts and never went to the moon ! Complete logic misfire Loser ! FAIL
stalkervision 1 month ago
Teeeker Daddy O completely owned you here. LOSER. Stop getting your facts from the back of Cheerios boxes.
stalkervision 1 month ago
BTW I see you STILL can't spell the word Hasselblad yet ? What a LOSER.. Wow you are obviously NOT a photographer and never got a BA in that field. FAIL ! LOL!
stalkervision 1 month ago
@stalkervision Yeeeeeaaahhh...Doodlyo owned me yeeeeeaaahhhh .
Figures an idiot like you would think that. Mmm mmm
If you would like to carry on this discussion about the environment of space, that would nice.
Except when cornered with facts and actual data you run away mired in your own epistemological shit.
Go back and make my hamburger you imbecile.
BTW..it's spelled Hassleblad, not "Hassabald". Are you ever right' about anything?
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead Seems like Stalkervision doesn't like people impersonating him right tweekerhead, aka stalkervisions?
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Hoax-believers block anyone who has a valid point or disrupts the belief system.Case in point un4g1v1n1.
So if you see a Apollo believer with multiple accounts,that's the reason.
Seems the hoaxheads don't like free-speech.
I read Mészáros' paper and you were dead wrong.
What,you didn't think anyone would actually read it?
You were wrong on both assumptions...Whata' surprise.
0.5MeV is all that was detected, now what? LOL
.
Having a discussion with you is like herding cats.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead Didn't block you Stupidhead, just ignoring you until you provide some proof of your bad astrophysics assertions.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 I didn't say you blocked me moron, un4g1n blocked me as many other hoaxheads. What I thought you were in favor of free speech, I guess not.
.
As far as you idiotic interpretation of Mészáros' paper you posted the link to.
It doesn't say any where that GRB are NOT subject to I~1/d², NADA.
So either you're a liar, or just another ignorant hoaxtard fool, I'm betting on the latter.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Why are you so hostile with people who have more knowledge than you?
Why are you so cynical,is your ego more important than knowledge?
Do you just want to impress some anonymous hoaxtards or feel like you see something the rest of the world was to inept to see?
I'm going to E-mail Mészáros,& explain to him how a Y-Tube woo-woo wannabe has twisted his data.
.
Then I'm going to contact Nick Kaiser, tell him you have been insinuating and pretending to him.Notoriety's a bitch.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
Geeezz you hoaxtards are fuckin stupid. God!!
You guys go back to work and make my fries.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
Weaker believed the LEM was designed by Rolls Royce that's what a simpleton he is. I had to correct this retard over and over again till he finally got is facts straight Daddy-0
stalkervision 1 month ago
@stalkervision Nope..sorry ....That's not what I said moron.
LLRV was a modifed design of the British "Flying Bedstead" w/ Rolls engines. It flew in 1954.
Coming from someone so obtuse, who claimed to be a professional photographer and then preceded to spell it "Hassabald" ..I can see how you could make that mistake.
You have the critical analysis of a salad-bar.
Nice try but...You failed yet again.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead It wasn't "modified" from the R/R design you little fool. God, you STILL don't know this YET !
stalkervision 1 month ago
@Weaker FAIL
stalkervision 1 month ago
Comment removed
stalkervision 1 month ago
The solar constant is 1.361 kilowatts per square meter.1.361 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.95 calories per minute per square centimeter, or 1.95 langleys (Ly) per minute. 1 watt (W) is equal to one joule per second (J/s or m2kgs-3). 1361 watts is 1361 joules per second. 1361 joules per second = 13610000000 ergs per second. 1 erg = 6.24150974 × 10^11 electron volts. Is this correct? Do the conversion yourself and see if it checks out. We never left low earth orbit then and we can't do it now.
Daddyo930 3 months ago
@Daddyo930 The solar constant is 1.361 kilowatts per square meter.1.361 kW/m², is equivalent to 1.95 calories per minute per never left low earth <<
YOU are a smart Daddyo!
EGMAG 1 month ago
@EGMAG Please clarify what you mean by that.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 clarify <<
1 light source sun . so it is logical any variation must mean the light is inside his helmet, judging from the the clash directions of shadows and light in this video, especialy the backwards shadows on the rocks. Unless Nasa did a hoax?? Hmmm!
EGMAG 1 month ago
@EGMAG First of all, I don't deal with anything except radiation issues. If you want to talk about light, go talk to someone else. If you don't know anything about radiation, here's a tool: Elements of Astrophysics. University of Hawaii. Google it.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 radiation issues. <<
Oopps! Well excuuuuseme! I thought that with a handle name like Daddyo you had a bit of a sense of humor and got my puns! Oh well, if your so smart about radiation you must know the first thing they teach in Physics class about light is the ''safer'' light from the sun, which is "radiating" the earth. I referred to that basic form of radiation in this video because there are no other meaningful forms of radiation ''at the moment'' in the above video!
EGMAG 1 month ago
@EGMAG So you don't really know anything then. The solar constant contains radiation in the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Now, what percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation? If you can't answer, that's fine.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 what percentage of the solar constant is ionizing radiation? <<
Ionizing (or ionising) radiation is ... 81 percent of which comes from natural sources of radiation. The remaining 19 percent results ... solar radiation, ...
EGMAG 1 month ago
@Daddyo930
Your not Nick Kaiser are you?
EGMAG 1 month ago
@EGMAG That all depends. Did you read the paper?
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Would you like me to bust your solar constant claim here some more, or you wanna' move on to GRB's here too? ;-))
Admit that GRB's are isotropic!! Funny, if they are isotropic then the Inverse square law (I~1/d²) definitely applies.
Go back and look up the definition of 'isotropic' again, I think you misread it.
Isotropic inference doesn't help your case you're trying to build, don't you see that?
LOL
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead The definition of isotropic is uniformity in all directions. What's your definition of isotropic? I told you. I'm done. Your too stupid to admit your wrong and move on.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Good for you, isotropic is like a shell identical in all directions. Isotropic is subject to I~1/d² without any doubt.
.
Now what specifically was I wrong about?
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead You just admitted in you other post that gamma ray bursts are not subject to the inverse square law. Thanks. You lose.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 What was I wrong about?
GRB's are subject to I~1/d² as all radiation is.
I know you'd like to get away from me like the plague, most feel that way about me, something facts that scare them, as you are of me now, but I have to ask in all this drama of yours, how are GRB's a prohibitive aspect of space travel?
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 EGMAG just owned you man....
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 You won't find a paper in the world that will say GRB's are NOT subject to I~1/d².
All radiation is subject to the laws of physics.
You've read something on GRB's & you've misinterpreted the information as usual to fit your idiotic notions.
Mészáros' paper doesn't say anywhere that GRB's are NOT subject to I~1/d²,NADA.
I don't know why you would try & pass that off as fact,did you think that I wouldn't read it.
So stupid that you can't tell I know what I'm talking about?
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead Never mind. It's like talking to my dog.
Daddyo930 1 month ago
@Daddyo930 Looks like we have your intellectual superior right here.
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Daddyo930
SOME
EGMAG 1 month ago
@EGMAG LOL.. Is he Kaiser? LOL
Doodlyo's interpretation of the solar constant is way off, of course you wouldn't know that.
X rays are among the LEAST powerful forms of radiation, being only 1/10th the strength of beta radiation, only 1/20th the strength of alpha. And yet, Alpha and Beta take up 88% of solar radiation, and are completely blockable with plastic & aluminum.
As far as flares, an X5 flare has a peak X-ray intensity of 5e-4 W/m². So that one's busted. GL....lol Kaiser!! lol
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
@Tweekerhead
LEAST powerful Types of solar radiation:
ultraviolet
visible light
infrared
The electromagnetic radiation with the lowest energy is
radio waves having the lowest frequency, lowest energy and longest wavelengths
EGMAG 1 month ago
@EGMAG Yeah man, some of those radio waves oscillate in waves as big as buildings.
Going down from the infra red into the ultraviolet, then X-ray, then gamma ray, they become smaller & smaller, until they oscillate in widths smaller than an atom.
They measure them in nanometers, a millionth of a millimeter.
.
Great stuff, if you keep reading, you may find that radiation was NOT a prohibitive barrier for the Moon landings ;-)
Tweekerhead 1 month ago
What is he doing?
norjop 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FAKE APOLLO 17
ASTRONAUT CERNAN IN AN INTERVIEW ON YOUTUBE SAID HE
DOES NOT KNOW WHERE THE RADIATION BELT IS
NASA APOLLO BULLSHIT
DeadJesus100 4 months ago
WHAT IS THIS GUY DOING?
EGMAG 4 months ago
@EGMAG Enjoying the gravity which is 1/6th of the Earth's, what else?
Daniel0889 2 months ago
@Daniel0889
HE'S ON WIRES DUMBASS
EGMAG 2 months ago
@EGMAG SURE... nobody was ever in space before I just heard...
Daniel0889 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Daniel0889 nobody was ever in space before I just <<
Well if your not taking anything serious, then who in the hell is going to believe men walked on the moon?
EGMAG 2 months ago
@Daniel0889
How come the sun is clearly reflected directly off the front of his helmet and yet there are shadows off the background rocks going in the wrong direction? Somebody blowing the whistle on this?
EGMAG 2 months ago
@EGMAG it could be the reflection of the earth
listeningfencepost 1 month ago
@listeningfencepost reflection of the earth<<
More likely it is a reflection of a miniture book reading lamp from inside his helmet!
EGMAG 1 month ago
I want to go on the moon too D:
xFreedi 5 months ago
@xFreedi Have you heard of the company Zero-G?
They actually let the public experience different kinds of weight environments in a specially built airplane by riding on parabolic arcs in the air; that can probably suffice your greatest longings for the moon. ^_^
Laurelindo 5 months ago
@xFreedi
Easy, just go to Nevada area 51 or in any other NASA's studio for an audition.
ApolloWasRealHoax 3 months ago
Let's track NASA's progress going backwards. No space flight. Low orbit space flight. Landed on the moon. Rofl.
luckylongarm1 6 months ago
@luckylongarm1 So what? Actually NASA:s manned spaceflight history goes:
Ballistic flights. Low Earth orbit flights. Circum lunar flights. Lunar landing flights.
Could it have been done in any other way?
Or, what do You mean?
YDDES 6 months ago
@YDDES negative. go backwards in time starting from now. no space flight. low orbit space flight with shuttle. oh and then moon landing.
luckylongarm1 6 months ago
@luckylongarm1 OK, and what about it? Except that's sad that the politicians cut the fundings for manned space programs, so new lunar flights will probably not happen in several decades.
YDDES 6 months ago
Astronuat Crenan on the Fake apollo 17 mission
said he di not know where the VAB is
NASA
F
A
K
E
R
S
DeadJesus100 6 months ago
On the sunny side of things on the moon the temp gets up to 250 F. in the shade it varies from minus 100 to minus 250. How in the heck do you build a rubber suit that comes with this, plus deadly doses of gamma and neutron radiation. and this guy has his visor up?
Heath75032 6 months ago
@Heath75032 its so easy you just film it on earth
DeadJesus100 6 months ago
@Heath75032 A "rubber suit"? Why don't You check facts before You write things that will risk You to make a fool of yourself?
Also: "this guy" has only his outer, goldplated visor up. Quite possible for brief moments, just like You don't always use sunglasses in bright sunlight.
YDDES 6 months ago
There are so many fools who don't believe. Fact is these videos are stunning proof and despite America's many flaws we are, always have been and always will be the greatest nation with the greatest minds. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!
MrFBCBSALES 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Very sad that there are so many idiots here who are very self impressed by their own misguided impressions that their own opinions add up to anything worth listening to.
firstpresence 7 months ago
Very sad that there are so many idiots here who are very self impressed by their own misguided impressions that their own opinions add up to anything worth listening to.
firstpresence 7 months ago
burden of proof lies with NASA. so far no proof has been given.
luckylongarm1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@luckylongarm1 you're a moron. look at this site if you need 'proof'
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/images15.html
firstpresence 7 months ago
@luckylongarm1 Those who count, like scientists and educated people know that man has walked on the moon.
NASA has no burden to prove anything to those who don't count. Like You and other uneducated persons.
YDDES 6 months ago
@YDDES your ignorance makes me lol and so does your logical fallacy
luckylongarm1 6 months ago
@luckylongarm1 Glad You can laugh, but NASA still has no burden to prove anything to You. Why should they care what YOU believe?
Their job is to advance aircraft technology and to make it possible for scientists to study space. Not to try to convince hopeless ignorants.
YDDES 6 months ago
Every one of these "moon landing" videos is laughable...
AndyHarglesis 8 months ago
@AndyHarglesis idiot lol
firstpresence 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndyHarglesis idiot lol
firstpresence 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndyHarglesis idiot lol
firstpresence 7 months ago
Thumbs down for this video. The uploaded dared to post fake footage of the believed "moon landing".
AndyHarglesis 9 months ago
@AndyHarglesis You're a faggot
TheLetsPlayBros 9 months ago
@TheLetsPlayBros As in what?
AndyHarglesis 9 months ago
@TheLetsPlayBros Funny how reality = faggot.
I guess bullshit government conspiracy must = straight.
LOL
AndyHarglesis 9 months ago
me i don't care and i totally believe that the apollo missions brought man on earth and back. And i appreciate the work done by the astronaut /cosmonaut /scientist indifferent of their nationality who put their lives on the line during each mission for the embetterment of humanity. Videos like this can easily be faked by pessimist, incapable and unscrupulous people. I instead would like to pay tribute to all those who died and those who landed on moon during the apollo mission era.
MrAshley160486 9 months ago
Moon's gravity is one sixth of Earths. Each spacesuit weighs around 185 pounds
on Earth or approx 31 Pounds on the moon. I am a 63 year man . I can jump
18 ins easily . Wearing a 31 pound suit I could jump at least 12 ins fairly easily .
That equates to 6 feet on the moon.
These astronauts were super fit guys aged around 30 .
Didn't see any of them jump more than 6-9 ins on these videos.
Something seriously wrong here. jbyeats
jbyeats 9 months ago
@jbyeats
You're not counting on how restrictive these suits were and difficult to move in. On earth they would barely be able to walk. They ARE jumping about 6 times higher than they could on earth.
There is a video of one of the astronauts jumping for height, he got up several feet before almost falling over and quitting .
The only thing seriously wrong is the typical short sighted narrow mindedness of hoax advocates, they don't think things through and are full of shit.
TheJomogogo 9 months ago
@TheJomogogo "They ARE jumping about 6 times higher than they could on earth."
Then there's about 3 problems here:
1.They need to work on leg strength if 6x the jumping height on Earth on the moon is only 12 inches. That would mean they can only jump 2 inches on Earth which would mean they are sickly dying or are not as fit as portrayed to be.
2.The mass of the suit may make jumping harder, but they still should jump higher.
3.I can jump 45 inches on Earth at 13. 6 X 45 = 270.
Total hoax.
AndyHarglesis 9 months ago
@jbyeats LAWL!
nanomagnetic 9 months ago
@jbyeats More proof of BS of the "moon landing". Neil Armstrong weighed like 150-170lbs and adding a 185lb space suit he'd weigh at least 335lbs on Earth or 55lbs on the moon.
If one weighed 55lbs on the moon, an adult, especially a fit one like astronauts are, they should be able to jump well over 15 inches with ease.
AndyHarglesis 9 months ago
@AndyHarglesis The usual argument without any clue of physics. How high would he jump on Earth? Let us say 10 centimeters. The weight changes, but the mass is still the same. John Youngs salute jump was measured with 60 to 65 centimeters. This is sex times higher as expected on Earth.
CHSarahBs 9 months ago
@CHSarahBs "This is sex times higher as expected on Earth."
Sex times higher? Never heard of that, sorry. :(
AndyHarglesis 9 months ago
@AndyHarglesis A typo. Come on, boy, you know exactly,that your are wrong ;)
CHSarahBs 9 months ago
@CHSarahBs I know that I'm right. That's where YOU are wrong, my friend. :P
Whether you're in U.S., Russia, Lithuania, China, Sweden, Germany, Japan, Italy, Cuba, Mexico, South America, Canada, Iceland, etc. you're still ALL considered humans and life forms in our planet Earth.
Our planet Earth is EXACTLY where the moon landing has been hoaxed and it has been hoaxed in U.S., North America.
Our country here, U.S., has the wits and power/money to come up with lies.
Learn the U.S. government.
AndyHarglesis 9 months ago
@AndyHarglesis Learn anything you can learn, you need it really. I see that you are wrong, when you can not do a simple calculation. And I see that you are wrong, when you need the help of hairspitting, when you are cornered.
And by the way, to have a friend like you should be irritating. I am lucky to know, that my friends prefer, similar to me, real scientific proof, not baseless assumptions and rantings from a YT-poser, who needs this medium to feel worth ;)
CHSarahBs 9 months ago
@CHSarahBs I have nothing to learn considering I know everything. ;)
I have no reason to hair split because I'm 100% confident. ;)
You are not my friend and a scumbag, government ass-kisser like you would never be. ;)
I have no tasks necessary to perform in order to feel worth when I'm way beyond everyone elses worth. ;)
AndyHarglesis 9 months ago
@AndyHarglesis You know everything? So why do you make such silly mistakes? But I will stand this post as it is. A proof for your gigantic superiority-complex ;) This must be a sad life but it is yours. Have fun with it, little boy ;)
CHSarahBs 9 months ago
@CHSarahBs I have new vids coming out that have REAL, irrefutable proof of the moon landing hoax and even Bin Laden's fake death lie by the government. It all comes together, the pieces, in my next coming two vids.
AndyHarglesis 9 months ago 2
@AndyHarglesis Fine. New vids for a good laugh ;)
CHSarahBs 9 months ago
@AndyHarglesis Wow,congratulations.I`ve had my PC on for 2 minutes and you`re the first twoofer I`ve seen today that`s claimed Osama`s not dead!
swfcocs1 9 months ago
@swfcocs1 Osama is not really dead. It's the U.S. government's latest scheme they're taking in their Overhaul contact.
AndyHarglesis 9 months ago
@AndyHarglesis Erm,I`m getting that deja vu feeling but- any evidence?
swfcocs1 9 months ago
@AndyHarglesis Is there a different methodology used in conspiracy circles?You appear to announce everything as "guaranteed proof" yet offer no evidence.Real proof is traceable to a source,and the source should not merely be another twoofers wild accusation
swfcocs1 8 months ago
@swfcocs1 Wow, you're really persuaded by the feds ...
AndyHarglesis 8 months ago
@AndyHarglesis What? How is that relevant to my question? How typical of a twoofer to assume that anyone who dares to disagrees with their inane worldview believes everything govts say1 Everyone knows that govts distort facts to suit their political viewpoint
swfcocs1 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@swfcocs1 Also, check my channel and vid to see my latest video on the government truth.
AndyHarglesis 9 months ago
@CHSarahBs Silly mistakes? I have yet to make a single mistake at all, ever.
If you mean failure to instruct 100% correctly and with right wording, then yeah, "mistakes" might fit there.
But everything I've been saying and all the information in my vids are perfectly accurate. You're just too fed up with government standards and science to really see the facts here.
I advise everyone here to watch my videos so they can see the truth and NOT what the government claims the truth is.
AndyHarglesis 9 months ago
@AndyHarglesis Again, you made a big mistake by ignoring a basic law of physics. Weight can change, but not the mass. The mass of an object on Earth is the same as on Moon. An astronaut with backpack (together 180 kg) can jump 10 to 15 cm on Earth. On Moon (30 kg but the same mass) he jumped 60 to 65 cm. Simple calculation and Newtons law. You missed or ignored both ;)
CHSarahBs 9 months ago
@CHSarahBs Fail.
AndyHarglesis 9 months ago
@AndyHarglesis I agree. One of your countless fails ;)
CHSarahBs 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CHSarahBs Osama Bin Laden is NOT really dead! Check my latest video out to see the truth! The U.S. government faked the death! Proof in my channel!
AndyHarglesis 9 months ago
@AndyHarglesis When saying " I have yet to make a single mistake,ever" do you mean since you dived into the wild and wacky world of the apollo-hoax society,or since you first drew breath?How are things going with the "proof" videos? Changed the world much? I sat through the first video and "facts" are very thin on the ground,rather it consists of opinions with no reference to source material or evidence
swfcocs1 9 months ago
@AndyHarglesis idiot
firstpresence 7 months ago
Jaxa say there is nothing at the landing sites..end of story...
jenleex 10 months ago
@jenleex -- No. Jaxa does not say that there is "nothing at the landing sites." Multiple countries have confirmed that there IS something at the landing sites. And THAT is the real "end of story."
And no ... you cannot jump 18 inches after flexing by only 6 inches downward as you see the astronauts do. Sorry; you just can't.
nesokretep 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jenleex -- No. Jaxa does not say that there is "nothing at the landing sites." Multiple countries have confirmed that there IS something at the landing sites. And THAT is the real "end of story."
And no, you cannot jump 18 inches after flexing by only 6 inches downward as you see the astronauts do. Sorry; you just can't.
nesokretep 9 months ago
why this astronaut have only one of his visor down @ 0:17 ?
THREESIXNINE100 10 months ago
@THREESIXNINE100 -- Why should he need to have his visor down?
Is it not possible to take your sun glasses off for a minute when you are in the snow? The astronauts were not in nearly as much glare as someone in the snow is.
nesokretep 9 months ago
where is the full version o_O
PxIxRxAxTxE 10 months ago
I have great respect for these men who had the gut's to do something grand as this..you weed smoking losers who like to pretend it was fake need to get job's and quit being dead weight to society.
rcarmickle1 11 months ago 8
@rcarmickle1 Fuck off back to the stone age weed smoking has nothing to do with it.
nilbud 10 months ago
@rcarmickle1 they didnt do anything. its faked. period
yourmajezty 7 months ago
@rcarmickle1 it was fake
YOUR FUCKING FUNNY! STUPID BUT...FUNNY!
EGMAG 4 months ago
why are the astronauts moving in slow-motion? compare with the Russian and american space walks!! they don't happen in slow-motion!
cheers suckers! :)
CT2507 11 months ago
oow dear "Houston we have a problem" the Moons's visual magnitude is +0.21 the Earths is -3.86 and the Astronot is looking directly into the SUN LoL ... NASA once again you've screwed up
ccc771 11 months ago
Watch out for the Zergs!!!
lazer1million 11 months ago
Ha ha.. Astronaut caught with the visor up and NASA caught with their Pants down!
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 You are an idiot.
deathstarsuperlaser 11 months ago
@deathstarsuperlaser correction, you are
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 STFU YOU HORRIGBLE NAZI I HOPE U DIE!!!!11!!!!
deathstarsuperlaser 11 months ago
@deathstarsuperlaser Actually your little Angel belief of the Moon landing was in fact a NAZI Design!
timrocket2008 11 months ago
@timrocket2008 Von Brahm acrtually hated the nZIS, THATS WHY HE DEFECed
deathstarsuperlaser 11 months ago
PLEASE WATCH THIS
ASTRONAUT WITH BOTH HIS VISORS UP IN 1:06 > 1:12
/watch?v=PgcgYjSSPk0&feature=related
TURNS SIDE TO SIDE INTO THE LIGHT AND ONLY THE PART OF THE VISOR THAT IS UP ABOVE HIS EYES SHOWS ANY KIND OF REFLECTION ..... APPEARS AS THOUGH HIS FACE IS NAKED
ArchangelWaiting 1 year ago
@ArchangelWaiting
hey dumbass the clear visor doesn't go up it's built into the helmet stupit fuck
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The moon missions were faked in a studio. Here's a link to some of the evidence.
3W's (dot) spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
Cosmored2 1 year ago
if they faked the moon landings why wouldn't they cut and reshoot this with his visor down? If it's faked it's not like they would have been filming live
Tewks44 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The internet has not changed history. It has just given idiots a bigger soapbox to stand on. For proof of this, read the comments below this one.
Synthetrix 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
mark gravity of the moon, pull on my string so i can float alittle lol copy to mark
datzfast 1 year ago
mark gravity of the moon, pull on my string so i can float alittle lol
datzfast 1 year ago
i am almost certain he was taking a poop and his visor was up so he may want to put it down out in the moonshine. dig a hole take a poop in it. yea, thats what he is doing.
datzfast 1 year ago
The more you looking at that video clip ,the more you appreciate what a beautiful place nevada actually is.
potrodsas 1 year ago
@potrodsas thats not nevada, i dont care if you dont think its the moon. if its earth its california.
datzfast 1 year ago
Thats a pretty cool vid, you never usually see their faces through their visors.
1987Stephencampbell 1 year ago 5
@1987Stephencampbell i know did you reconise him?
datzfast 1 year ago
I love this fake stuff.. i watched real space video they didn't go in slow motion hahaha at all.
Dorisequador 1 year ago
@Dorisequador that's true. on the russian and american spacewalks no slow-motions is used! its not necessary! :)
CT2507 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Neil Armstrong..."and parrots don't fly very well"
Ironoff 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Neil Armstrong..."and parrots don't fly very well"
Ironoff 1 year ago
@SUPER3ARIANARA a yo man, picking on gypsies is so 1900's. And I wasn't making fun of your English, just correcting the error. No need to get all bitchy about it.
bobovaca 1 year ago