All "radiation" can be dangerous if it's intense enough, or if You stay in it long enough. Otherwise it isn't dangerous. Sunshine on the beach, as well as the x-rays at the dentist can kill You if You are subjected to it long enough. Otherwise You'll not be harmed. The same with the radiation in space.
The Apollo astronauts were not exposed to any dangerously intense radiation long enough to be harmed. Just as simple as that.
@YDDES all radiation is not harmful to us, at w/e intensity. for example, the frequencies of light that our skin re-radiates our is not harmful to as at all. It is only the frequencies that get absorbed that can potentially be harmful to us.
@odin6616 Radar and microwave links for TV can cook Your brain if You stay close to it long enough. I worked in the business and at least one person nearly burned his hand while servicing a micro wave link.
for one and all: i guess people here are not arguing scientifically about the topic and instead venture out to hint "hoax theorists" as if they're fond of bashing them every now and then. for one, the genuineness of the apollo missions are not being questioned here. it's simple enough to understand that many videos showing moon walkings, experiments or other demonstrable activities, are just not cogent enough to have taken place on the moon. other than that, the arguers don't have any problem!
@nesokretep please see wikipedia on radiation, at the least. i am not my source. there are countless other .edu, .org sites you could refer to on radiation. please tell me, if radiation from the yesteryear's chernobyl or the now fukushima isn't deadly within a few days. else, why would radiation experts start worrying about leaks in japan's ordinary tap water? i've all along quoted only other valid web sources for all. and if you have any doubts, then check out nasa site on space radiation.
@nesokretep also, if you hinted that "radiation would 'not' be deadly within a few days", then i guess you're way out of scientific reasoning here. trust me, radiation is not only deadly within a few days, but it'd would cause so deep internal hemorrhages (saying not me, medical journals) that even god would have trouble identifying who's who of the casualties.
if you remember the three mile island radiation leak, then you'd know that epa didn't even hint at sending their agents with (contd..)
@nesokretep (contd...) radiation-proof lead suits. all radiologists wear them taking x-rays of patients. know this, everything that radiation "permeates" becomes a secondary source of radiation! the concerns nasa has with radiation on the moon have taken on serious desk discussions with million dollar funding from the gov for fresh research. nothing 'undeadly' would have warranted such an action.
let's keep this argument alive and interesting, and free of any personal judgements now, please.
@nesokretep there you go again, sir, there you go again. i specifically said that personal judgments be left out but you couldn't care less. so, let me be straight to the point: the wiki radiation site is public domain but edited by scientists and reputed radiologists and doctors. other academic websites (can be googled) on radiation are authentic reading material. i say again that i've quoted only such sources and the statements are not mine. (contd...)
@zambi007i -- I am not here to argue specifically that they did go to the moon or that they didn't go to the moon.
I am only interested in people doing their research objectively.
Being skeptical is good. Never just "believe" someone. Espeically the government.
But do not be too simplistic about it. There are lots of people making sensational stories about "radiation" or whatever. Those stories are not always true.
@nesokretep (contd...) so please, please go through at least one such page before saying "not true" or "certain instances", etc. and i never referred to doubts about moon landing. i said radiation is deadly in the context of space radiation. aren't we discussion space radiation? i mean, who talked about infrared or microwave or even meter long radiation? and ultraviolet also kills the human body. that's why we've ozone here whereas our moon isn't so fortunate!
@zambi007i -- I did not make any "personal judgements." I merely recommended that you learn more. My recommendation was based on (1) my assumption that you are the one who posted your previous comment and (2) the fact that your previous comment contained many errors.
- I am fully aware that radiation can cause such things as cancer and hemorrhages and genetic deformity and even instant death.
- That these things are in medical journals is not meaningful without other very specific information.
- As I said, all effects of radiation depend on two things: The kind and the intensity.
- Therefore without specific information about the kind and intensity of radiation in space, it is simply impossible to discuss the danger to the Apollo astronauts rationally.
It's really sad seeing politics of that president of Yours, killing Constellation before it was truly born. All we do is make faster processors and we jerk off from pride about them and it's the greatest innovation we know. But there not. All they do is the same: operate on ones and zeros. So what they packed 400mln transistors in the i7 vs 300mln in C2 Duo? Still the same shit. Think of the progress made building Apollo guidance computer. Now THAT was innovation. 2MHz masterpiece of human mind.
how did an organic object survive the naked solar radiation bombardment on the moon? scott says it was a falcon feather. so it has to be a real feather. did nasa coat it with anti-radiation paint? i'd like serius scientific arguments on this here!
@guitarnashelter: ok, can you take any 'dead' feather and put it inside a medical cobalt-60 chamber and expect that it will not wither away to black carbon? if yes, i'd have to agree with your opinion. but if not, then my point should stand proven! and for this, no one need do an 'actual' experiment. any expert medical radiologist will tell you what is bound to happen.
@zambi007i Solar X-ray emissions are measured in the 10^-5 Watt/m2 range at the strongest, during maximum flare activity. Cosmic background radiation is comparable. That feather likely did absorb a significant dose of ionizing radiation, but the thermal effects were negligible (It would absorb more energy from conduction through the astronaut's glove). Being made of dead matter, it doesn't exactly have to worry about cancer or necrosis, and the radiation levels are too low to transmute it.
@SelkitFox@SelkitFox please go thru rbsp (dot) jhuapl (dot) edu once. at its strongest, the solar x-ray is enough to make solid steel malleable. that's why you see the outer shell of spacecrafts layered with gold foil (satellites) or ceramics (shuttle). the cosmic background radiation is a remnant of the big bang era radiation. it has nothing to do with here. the cosmic radiation on the moon gets its lot from the sun. x, gamma, beta, neutrinos, alpha &c.
@SelkitFox any radiation that radiologists warn people to keep away from makes even dead organic material black. the article at en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation is a must-read. the references, particularly at #2, #5 and #19 are detailed discussions on space radiation hazard. i didn't even hint at "cancer" of dead cells and you go on to even emphasize it. (contd...)
@SelkitFox 'survive' meant the feather didn't turn black because any ionizing space radiation particularly alpha particles would release all the electrons in the bio-chemical molecules. and this would release all oxides, hydroxides, nitrides, nitrates, phosphates and other bio-chemicals from the "dead" organic compound thus leaving carbon all over. this makes any organic compound turn BLACK. i hope this clarifies.
@SelkitFox and by the way, could you please elucidate "dead matter"? i guess dead matter don't turn radiation-proof at any cost. there's still carbon-hydrogen-nitrogen-oxygen combination compounds left in them otherwise radio-carbon dating would be a physical impossibility.
@zambi007i Radiological transmutation does occur after significant exposure; However, that kind of exposure will only occur over very long timescales; Steel does indeed transmute in space (It grows dangerously brittle after long term exposure), but organic materials are generally more resistant to transmutation; The dramatic effects you describe will occur after only decades of exposure, even to cosmic background radiation. Exposure in the short term is only significant for living tissue.
@SelkitFox let's see if one makes a anti radiation suit made of 'dead' organic material and wear it to the fukushima (or whatever) reactor to contain it! i'll be happy to admit your statement.
@zambi007i The damage to organic matter is genetic, not physical, unless the bombardment is or ridiculously high intensity over very long periods. Radiation does not kill you because it blows you apart or transmutes you, it kills you by disrupting cells during mitosis. Please go take a rudimentary physics class. And your comparison is inaccurate; Cosmic rays are high energy particles, not gamma rays. If you're going to try and refute science, at least grasp what the hell you're talking about.
@SelkitFox you're correct on the radiation effect. but be aware too that radiation on the surface of the moon is mainly from our sun. and with a zero protective atmosphere, the intensity and quantity of particle bombardment per square inch there does not require any "rudimentary physics class" to understand that on the moon, REPEAT ON THE MOON, the intensity per square inch of nuclear radiation from the sun is tremendous enough to kill within a few hours of stay. (contd...)
@zambi007i It is not intense enough to kill you within "A few hours". If that were the case, the Apollo crew would have fried on the way over; Metal is actually quite bad at stopping cosmic radiation (It actually generates secondary X-rays through Bremmstrahlung). Look up Symposium S251, 2008, from Cambridge Journals , "Organic matter in space". Pick a different woo-woo Moon conspiracy argument; Yours is thoroughly debunked. Until you understand that paper, don't bother messaging me again.
@SelkitFox you've got it all wrong! i never hinted at any hoax. i, above all, truly believe that the moon missions were not only real but substantiate the saturn5, among other such marvels. this argument is purely restricted to the video of hammer and feather, which is somewhat not true enough. i believe this video could not have been created on the moon. the moon missions were 'real' and not 'faked'. but many videos simply are way too unbelievable to be believed.
@SelkitFox if radiological effect on any object is directly proportional to the radiation intensity, then on the moon surface, no object other than lead, gold or related titanium alloys is "immune enough". the page at hps (dot) org publicinformation ate q44 (dot) html is worth a sight. and yes, gamma radiation on the moon (from the sun) is deadly. enough to kill within a few days or cause carbon neutralization within hours. it's not dramatic, it's physics. you should pl study.
I've been looking for even the slightest hint that the radiation on the moon would have been too dangerous for the Apollo astronauts. No hoax-theory promoter has ever given even a single reference to anything which would indicate that it was. Since you refered to an article on radiation, I was hoping thaf finally I would have something.
But ... you have confirmed yet again ... that all hoax-theory promoters are full of nonsense on the subject.
@nesokretep pl. read my post again. i never hinted that the apollo astronauts never touched the moon surface. and please refrain from judging a post on your instincts. thank you sir!
oh, and by the way, if radiation in space could kill an astronaut-with-suit-on, then almost all of them alive would either have developed cancer,at the least!
ONE THING MISSING: we do not have a proof on this video that the objects (hammer and feather) did in fact have different weight !!! One could make a feather replica out of heavy metal so it has the same weight (or more) as that aluminum geological hammer (1.32kg). I am not questioning anything, the video is low resolution, even the bigger version on nasa website, i am just saying that we do not have all the information on our end.
The fact that you're using weight instead of mass shows that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You're terribly confused and should just stop making inane comments.
@ny151151 Weight has nothing to do with what occurred here. If you believe that the equal rate of descent was a function of weight, please compare a 2 ton light aircraft to a 2 ton block of iron. A fall on Earth is influenced by drag, Bernoulli principle acting on lifting surfaces (IE: Wing airfoils, and by extension feathers), and other atmospheric effects. There is no atmosphere on the moon; Any object falling on the moon will fall at 0.16~ G, regardless of size, shape, weight or composition.
I'm incapable of thinking for myself? I'm a moron?
Thanks for your contribution. Now I know I'm a moron I'd better quit my job programming computers (which obviously requires one to think a fair bit for themselves)
Its just a demostration that no one can do on earth. The science is based on demostrations, and they could do it.
And this, if you don't know, is a proof that there was no air there. Like someones sais in other vid called "Apollo 15 waving flag at 2:37". There are a lot of evidence that point the trips to moon are real. But conspirators prefer to think a lot of bullshits and not to demostrate (I repeat: Demostrate) anything.
Hey that was a big heavy looking feather. I have seen this done on earth with a heavy Falcon feather and they still fall at the same speed. Sorry this moon example is no conclusive. SORRY moonies.
@Oroborus12 The hammer is not there anymore. One night, I grabbed a really strong magnet because I needed to finish a carpentry job and snatched it from the surface of the moon. The feather is still there though.
Rebuttal dM0FDGOsslU. Does AULIS work for MI6? Google ARRL Moonbounce, to prove it only takes a 500 watt FM radio transmitter and a TV antenna to duplicate NASA's "proof" of Apollo laser beam reflector BS. Ham radio operators have been bouncing signals off the Moon since 1946. Google "Lunar Prospector Gamma-Ray Spectrometer" to see NASA Gamma Ray maps of the Moon from 1990s. It took NASA 30 years after Apollo to learn there's more Gamma Rays on the Moon than on the surface of the Sun.
I am not a hoax advocate nor a consipracy theorist. This is a serious scientific inquiry. Please answer this: The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine. How could a fragile falcon feather have withstood such temperature differences during this experiment?
Fascinating to see clips of people landing on the moon. Such a pity that in today's society and technology such achievements don't seem to have that much relevance anymore (as noted by Penn and Teller).
All "radiation" can be dangerous if it's intense enough, or if You stay in it long enough. Otherwise it isn't dangerous. Sunshine on the beach, as well as the x-rays at the dentist can kill You if You are subjected to it long enough. Otherwise You'll not be harmed. The same with the radiation in space.
The Apollo astronauts were not exposed to any dangerously intense radiation long enough to be harmed. Just as simple as that.
YDDES 10 months ago
@YDDES all radiation is not harmful to us, at w/e intensity. for example, the frequencies of light that our skin re-radiates our is not harmful to as at all. It is only the frequencies that get absorbed that can potentially be harmful to us.
blueshift314 1 month ago
@YDDES Do radiowaves just burn you like microwaves if intense enough?
odin6616 1 week ago
@odin6616 Radar and microwave links for TV can cook Your brain if You stay close to it long enough. I worked in the business and at least one person nearly burned his hand while servicing a micro wave link.
YDDES 1 week ago
@YDDES A simple yes would have sufficed.
odin6616 1 week ago
sorry, not discussion, discussing!
zambi007i 11 months ago
for one and all: i guess people here are not arguing scientifically about the topic and instead venture out to hint "hoax theorists" as if they're fond of bashing them every now and then. for one, the genuineness of the apollo missions are not being questioned here. it's simple enough to understand that many videos showing moon walkings, experiments or other demonstrable activities, are just not cogent enough to have taken place on the moon. other than that, the arguers don't have any problem!
zambi007i 11 months ago
@zambi007i -- You claim that "people here are not arguing scientifically about the topic."
Yes. You are right. People such as yourself make definite claims without even a hint of support for them.
That is at least two so far. You claim that the radiation would be "deadly within a few days."
Do you have a source for that?
Or did you make it up?
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep please see wikipedia on radiation, at the least. i am not my source. there are countless other .edu, .org sites you could refer to on radiation. please tell me, if radiation from the yesteryear's chernobyl or the now fukushima isn't deadly within a few days. else, why would radiation experts start worrying about leaks in japan's ordinary tap water? i've all along quoted only other valid web sources for all. and if you have any doubts, then check out nasa site on space radiation.
zambi007i 11 months ago
@nesokretep also, if you hinted that "radiation would 'not' be deadly within a few days", then i guess you're way out of scientific reasoning here. trust me, radiation is not only deadly within a few days, but it'd would cause so deep internal hemorrhages (saying not me, medical journals) that even god would have trouble identifying who's who of the casualties.
if you remember the three mile island radiation leak, then you'd know that epa didn't even hint at sending their agents with (contd..)
zambi007i 11 months ago
@nesokretep (contd...) radiation-proof lead suits. all radiologists wear them taking x-rays of patients. know this, everything that radiation "permeates" becomes a secondary source of radiation! the concerns nasa has with radiation on the moon have taken on serious desk discussions with million dollar funding from the gov for fresh research. nothing 'undeadly' would have warranted such an action.
let's keep this argument alive and interesting, and free of any personal judgements now, please.
zambi007i 11 months ago
@zambi007i -- I recommend you learn more.
You said "everything that radiation 'permeates' becomes a secondary source of radiation."
This is not true.
It only happens in certain instances. See if you can find out which ones.
You are talking as if "radiation" were one particluar thing and it is always deadly.
Do you know that you cannot even live with radiation? If you were not surrounded by radiation, you would die within minutes.
It all depends on the type of radiation and the intensity.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep there you go again, sir, there you go again. i specifically said that personal judgments be left out but you couldn't care less. so, let me be straight to the point: the wiki radiation site is public domain but edited by scientists and reputed radiologists and doctors. other academic websites (can be googled) on radiation are authentic reading material. i say again that i've quoted only such sources and the statements are not mine. (contd...)
zambi007i 11 months ago
@zambi007i -- I am not here to argue specifically that they did go to the moon or that they didn't go to the moon.
I am only interested in people doing their research objectively.
Being skeptical is good. Never just "believe" someone. Espeically the government.
But do not be too simplistic about it. There are lots of people making sensational stories about "radiation" or whatever. Those stories are not always true.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep (contd...) so please, please go through at least one such page before saying "not true" or "certain instances", etc. and i never referred to doubts about moon landing. i said radiation is deadly in the context of space radiation. aren't we discussion space radiation? i mean, who talked about infrared or microwave or even meter long radiation? and ultraviolet also kills the human body. that's why we've ozone here whereas our moon isn't so fortunate!
zambi007i 11 months ago
@zambi007i -- I did not make any "personal judgements." I merely recommended that you learn more. My recommendation was based on (1) my assumption that you are the one who posted your previous comment and (2) the fact that your previous comment contained many errors.
nesokretep 11 months ago
- It is in fact not true that "everything that radiation 'permeates' becomes a secondary source of radiation."
- Only radiation of a certain kind and intensity can do that.
- The term "space radiation" does not refer to a specific kind of radiation.
- All radiation, including the various kinds without which you cannot live is "space radiation."
- You cannot conclude anything at all about the danger of radiation on the moon merely with the fact that radiation at Chernobyl was harmful.
nesokretep 11 months ago
- I am fully aware that radiation can cause such things as cancer and hemorrhages and genetic deformity and even instant death.
- That these things are in medical journals is not meaningful without other very specific information.
- As I said, all effects of radiation depend on two things: The kind and the intensity.
- Therefore without specific information about the kind and intensity of radiation in space, it is simply impossible to discuss the danger to the Apollo astronauts rationally.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep i take your point. let me get back with more info on fukushima fallout i'm currently studying on. thanx for sustaining the conversation.
zambi007i 11 months ago
It's really sad seeing politics of that president of Yours, killing Constellation before it was truly born. All we do is make faster processors and we jerk off from pride about them and it's the greatest innovation we know. But there not. All they do is the same: operate on ones and zeros. So what they packed 400mln transistors in the i7 vs 300mln in C2 Duo? Still the same shit. Think of the progress made building Apollo guidance computer. Now THAT was innovation. 2MHz masterpiece of human mind.
soberek 1 year ago
how did an organic object survive the naked solar radiation bombardment on the moon? scott says it was a falcon feather. so it has to be a real feather. did nasa coat it with anti-radiation paint? i'd like serius scientific arguments on this here!
zambi007i 1 year ago
@zambi007i ,the feather is not going to just vapourise or melt or whatever radiation type obsession you have going on here,that is just silly.
guitarnashelter 1 year ago
@guitarnashelter: ok, can you take any 'dead' feather and put it inside a medical cobalt-60 chamber and expect that it will not wither away to black carbon? if yes, i'd have to agree with your opinion. but if not, then my point should stand proven! and for this, no one need do an 'actual' experiment. any expert medical radiologist will tell you what is bound to happen.
zambi007i 1 year ago
@zambi007i Solar X-ray emissions are measured in the 10^-5 Watt/m2 range at the strongest, during maximum flare activity. Cosmic background radiation is comparable. That feather likely did absorb a significant dose of ionizing radiation, but the thermal effects were negligible (It would absorb more energy from conduction through the astronaut's glove). Being made of dead matter, it doesn't exactly have to worry about cancer or necrosis, and the radiation levels are too low to transmute it.
SelkitFox 1 year ago
@SelkitFox @SelkitFox please go thru rbsp (dot) jhuapl (dot) edu once. at its strongest, the solar x-ray is enough to make solid steel malleable. that's why you see the outer shell of spacecrafts layered with gold foil (satellites) or ceramics (shuttle). the cosmic background radiation is a remnant of the big bang era radiation. it has nothing to do with here. the cosmic radiation on the moon gets its lot from the sun. x, gamma, beta, neutrinos, alpha &c.
zambi007i 1 year ago
@SelkitFox any radiation that radiologists warn people to keep away from makes even dead organic material black. the article at en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation is a must-read. the references, particularly at #2, #5 and #19 are detailed discussions on space radiation hazard. i didn't even hint at "cancer" of dead cells and you go on to even emphasize it. (contd...)
zambi007i 1 year ago
@SelkitFox 'survive' meant the feather didn't turn black because any ionizing space radiation particularly alpha particles would release all the electrons in the bio-chemical molecules. and this would release all oxides, hydroxides, nitrides, nitrates, phosphates and other bio-chemicals from the "dead" organic compound thus leaving carbon all over. this makes any organic compound turn BLACK. i hope this clarifies.
zambi007i 1 year ago
@SelkitFox and by the way, could you please elucidate "dead matter"? i guess dead matter don't turn radiation-proof at any cost. there's still carbon-hydrogen-nitrogen-oxygen combination compounds left in them otherwise radio-carbon dating would be a physical impossibility.
zambi007i 1 year ago
@zambi007i Radiological transmutation does occur after significant exposure; However, that kind of exposure will only occur over very long timescales; Steel does indeed transmute in space (It grows dangerously brittle after long term exposure), but organic materials are generally more resistant to transmutation; The dramatic effects you describe will occur after only decades of exposure, even to cosmic background radiation. Exposure in the short term is only significant for living tissue.
SelkitFox 1 year ago
@SelkitFox let's see if one makes a anti radiation suit made of 'dead' organic material and wear it to the fukushima (or whatever) reactor to contain it! i'll be happy to admit your statement.
zambi007i 11 months ago
@zambi007i The damage to organic matter is genetic, not physical, unless the bombardment is or ridiculously high intensity over very long periods. Radiation does not kill you because it blows you apart or transmutes you, it kills you by disrupting cells during mitosis. Please go take a rudimentary physics class. And your comparison is inaccurate; Cosmic rays are high energy particles, not gamma rays. If you're going to try and refute science, at least grasp what the hell you're talking about.
SelkitFox 11 months ago
@SelkitFox you're correct on the radiation effect. but be aware too that radiation on the surface of the moon is mainly from our sun. and with a zero protective atmosphere, the intensity and quantity of particle bombardment per square inch there does not require any "rudimentary physics class" to understand that on the moon, REPEAT ON THE MOON, the intensity per square inch of nuclear radiation from the sun is tremendous enough to kill within a few hours of stay. (contd...)
zambi007i 11 months ago
@zambi007i It is not intense enough to kill you within "A few hours". If that were the case, the Apollo crew would have fried on the way over; Metal is actually quite bad at stopping cosmic radiation (It actually generates secondary X-rays through Bremmstrahlung). Look up Symposium S251, 2008, from Cambridge Journals , "Organic matter in space". Pick a different woo-woo Moon conspiracy argument; Yours is thoroughly debunked. Until you understand that paper, don't bother messaging me again.
SelkitFox 11 months ago
@SelkitFox you've got it all wrong! i never hinted at any hoax. i, above all, truly believe that the moon missions were not only real but substantiate the saturn5, among other such marvels. this argument is purely restricted to the video of hammer and feather, which is somewhat not true enough. i believe this video could not have been created on the moon. the moon missions were 'real' and not 'faked'. but many videos simply are way too unbelievable to be believed.
zambi007i 11 months ago
@SelkitFox if radiological effect on any object is directly proportional to the radiation intensity, then on the moon surface, no object other than lead, gold or related titanium alloys is "immune enough". the page at hps (dot) org publicinformation ate q44 (dot) html is worth a sight. and yes, gamma radiation on the moon (from the sun) is deadly. enough to kill within a few days or cause carbon neutralization within hours. it's not dramatic, it's physics. you should pl study.
zambi007i 11 months ago
@zambi007i -- Thank you.
I've been looking for even the slightest hint that the radiation on the moon would have been too dangerous for the Apollo astronauts. No hoax-theory promoter has ever given even a single reference to anything which would indicate that it was. Since you refered to an article on radiation, I was hoping thaf finally I would have something.
But ... you have confirmed yet again ... that all hoax-theory promoters are full of nonsense on the subject.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep pl. read my post again. i never hinted that the apollo astronauts never touched the moon surface. and please refrain from judging a post on your instincts. thank you sir!
oh, and by the way, if radiation in space could kill an astronaut-with-suit-on, then almost all of them alive would either have developed cancer,at the least!
zambi007i 11 months ago
ONE THING MISSING: we do not have a proof on this video that the objects (hammer and feather) did in fact have different weight !!! One could make a feather replica out of heavy metal so it has the same weight (or more) as that aluminum geological hammer (1.32kg). I am not questioning anything, the video is low resolution, even the bigger version on nasa website, i am just saying that we do not have all the information on our end.
ny151151 1 year ago
@ny151151
The fact that you're using weight instead of mass shows that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. You're terribly confused and should just stop making inane comments.
eatwoodman 1 year ago
@ny151151 shut the fuck up
whitehawk38 1 year ago
@ny151151 Weight has nothing to do with what occurred here. If you believe that the equal rate of descent was a function of weight, please compare a 2 ton light aircraft to a 2 ton block of iron. A fall on Earth is influenced by drag, Bernoulli principle acting on lifting surfaces (IE: Wing airfoils, and by extension feathers), and other atmospheric effects. There is no atmosphere on the moon; Any object falling on the moon will fall at 0.16~ G, regardless of size, shape, weight or composition.
SelkitFox 1 year ago
@ny151151 why should their weight (i assume u meant mass) even matter? acceleration is constant regardless of the weight
tpcardoso 5 months ago
soo true
JuanPapaNicolao 1 year ago
I watched this over and over again... paused it right after he dropped the hammer, and never could see the feather falling or hitting the ground.
HurricaneHeidi 2 years ago
So they take a feather and a hammer to the moon, for what? They already knew that Galilei was right.
It's all hollywood bs!
shanehoustein 2 years ago
No moron, it's educational. So now you know Galileo was right through a simple one-minute lesson.
It appears though, you may be incapable of thinking for yourself, unfortunately.
krisdevalle 2 years ago
I'm incapable of thinking for myself? I'm a moron?
Thanks for your contribution. Now I know I'm a moron I'd better quit my job programming computers (which obviously requires one to think a fair bit for themselves)
shanehoustein 2 years ago
Man, you asked the stupid question.
Why did they take a hammer and feather to the moon?
To demonstrate a theory for everyone else in the world.
If you're smart enough to program, you're smart enough to apply logical analysis to the facts of the moon landing, and deduce the truth.
krisdevalle 2 years ago
To prove the theory. It's really not that hard to figure out.
JarfJam 2 years ago
Its just a demostration that no one can do on earth. The science is based on demostrations, and they could do it.
And this, if you don't know, is a proof that there was no air there. Like someones sais in other vid called "Apollo 15 waving flag at 2:37". There are a lot of evidence that point the trips to moon are real. But conspirators prefer to think a lot of bullshits and not to demostrate (I repeat: Demostrate) anything.
AdriancitoooO 2 years ago
so they did get to the moon?
atreusK 2 years ago
Hey that was a big heavy looking feather. I have seen this done on earth with a heavy Falcon feather and they still fall at the same speed. Sorry this moon example is no conclusive. SORRY moonies.
guesser7 2 years ago
OMGWTFBBQ you're telling us a falcon feather and a hammer fall at the same speed on earth and you've seen it? You're just having us on, right?
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
@guesser7 "big heavy looking feather" makes you sound very dumb.
PirateEyepatch 1 year ago
Did they leave them (the Feather & Hammer) on the moon, & if so on what side, it would be kickass if you could find 'em with a Telescope...
Oroborus12 2 years ago
They are too small. even whats left of the LEM's would only be the size of a pixel.
craigisbond007 2 years ago
@Oroborus12 The hammer is not there anymore. One night, I grabbed a really strong magnet because I needed to finish a carpentry job and snatched it from the surface of the moon. The feather is still there though.
PirateEyepatch 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rebuttal dM0FDGOsslU. Does AULIS work for MI6? Google ARRL Moonbounce, to prove it only takes a 500 watt FM radio transmitter and a TV antenna to duplicate NASA's "proof" of Apollo laser beam reflector BS. Ham radio operators have been bouncing signals off the Moon since 1946. Google "Lunar Prospector Gamma-Ray Spectrometer" to see NASA Gamma Ray maps of the Moon from 1990s. It took NASA 30 years after Apollo to learn there's more Gamma Rays on the Moon than on the surface of the Sun.
operationnorthwoodz 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am not a hoax advocate nor a consipracy theorist. This is a serious scientific inquiry. Please answer this: The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine. How could a fragile falcon feather have withstood such temperature differences during this experiment?
YTubeMoralAction 2 years ago
Fascinating to see clips of people landing on the moon. Such a pity that in today's society and technology such achievements don't seem to have that much relevance anymore (as noted by Penn and Teller).
ErichoTTA 3 years ago 6
Newton is rolling in his grave.
stevespielberg 3 years ago
Why?
bodrius 3 years ago
Iget it its newton the dicovered gravity but there giving the credit to someone eles
AaLEeKSs1 2 years ago
Except Galilei lived before him, sorry man, you're wrong. Galilei was even dead when Newton was born. Get your facts right before posting it.
chirssirhc 2 years ago
Why there proving newton right
do you think he would have liked it better had they used a apple
AaLEeKSs1 2 years ago
its funny how they started jumpin around at the end =P
khughes13 3 years ago
i know lol but thats how they walk on the moon since there is less gravity than the earth =)
pearceyman 2 years ago
this proves that they landed on the moon for real
BryanBeatsYouAll 3 years ago 8