Mythbusters Moon Hoax Footprint

[Fridaey13txhOktober]

2:49, is that it?

Now compare to this.

wallpapervortex.c om/ipad_wallpapers/ipad_13492_­space_mission_moon_footprint.j pg

popsci.c om/files/imagecache/article_im­age_large/articles/hubb.j pg

[LunarTuner]

@Fridaey13txhOktober, I'm not sure I understand your point. What are you trying to say about the comparison?

[Fridaey13txhOktober]

The bootprint might have only slightly collapsed, unlike what would have happened with beach sand, but the bootprint is still far from looking alike the moon ones.

Mythbuster team slacked.

[LunarTuner]

@Fridaey13txhOktober, keep in mind, this is an experiment on earth where the gravity pulling on the sides of an imprint is 6 times greater. I can forgive Mythbusters for not duplicating that factor. They also should have pointed out that there is no such thing as lunar regolith that is uniformly fine our course on the moon. Nonetheless, they demonstrated that a print is possible. That was the goal.

[Fridaey13txhOktober]

Yes, the bootprint should have been deeper. It isn´t the first time they are so careless.

It isn´t that it was possible but that this "prooves" that "the myth" is "busted", which it isn´t.

I can lift 30 kilos but that doesn´t mean I can lift 150 kilos.

[Ragnarok222R]

watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0&feature=re­lated

I posted a plan on here regarding @fuckutube74 aka @2nasafakedit aka @humanmonkeyrace aka @nasafakedit

He's clouded up the airways with his shouting long enough and we need to get rid of him to clear up room for an intelligent debate on this.

I can see he's blocked from this page but their are some he is not, please help out those discussing it their, or encourage them to bring their discussion here.

[nasafakedit]

Mythbuster Spastics

Nasa Paid Propaganda Whores

Apollo Fake Missions

[LunarTuner]

@nasafakedit I'd love for someone to present actual evidence that Mythbusters was pain anything by NASA to do this. So far, no one has braved such a thing, but merely offered something circumstantial like, "they used their plane" or some nonsense like that. How about eyewitness testimony or an affidavit or REAL evidence! No? No one? Just another theory?

[nasafakedit]

@LunarTuner the propaganda kid

watch?v=23_QdAz2tfY&playnext_f­rom=TL&videos=398Sya9RUD4

[LunarTuner]

@nasafakedit That video was already debunked.

LunarTuner#p/u/3/L9mYWWHREag

[nasafakedit]

@LunarTuner  the propaganda pimp

LOl @ debunked

APOLLO NAZI HOAX

Mytbusters are Spastics

[AnonymousElektron]

@LunarTuner There is no way that is real.

These paid propagandist scum should be shamed for what they done lyers

[LunarTuner]

@AnonymousElektron On what basis is the lunar landing not real? Be specific.

[AnonymousElektron]

@LunarTuner gee, I don't know, maybe that the mythbusters also said that an aluminum and kevlar plain could down two skyscrapers???

The way they so shamelessly rub it in our faces that they're lying to us.

Why dont they goto hell.

[LunarTuner]

@AnonymousElektron, no, we are NOT going to talk about another conspiracy theory on this site. We are NOT going to talk about a 380,000 lbs. "bomb" flying 200+ mph bringing down a building. No, we're not having that discussion. You can do it elsewhere. My videos are about Apollo (and here, I am god). ;)

[AnonymousElektron]

@LunarTuner Ok, explain why a feather and hammer supposedly fell at the same speed?

More NASA lies I can almost see the strimgs making them fall straight down.

Why no scorch marks on take off?

Why no dust?

Why no starts in the sky?

What about the "C" rock?

Set piece much?

This is so stupid I can't even begin to fathom this.

[LunarTuner]

@AnonymousElektron, too much to write here. I'll explain it in a message when I get time. But...

Hammer/feather--GALILEO!

Scorch marks? -It's not a blow torch! It didn't stay there! The entire moon is covered with scorched material!

Dust? Dust is everywhere! You don't see dust in this video? "lots of dust" at 4:18 watch?v=4U32lnvAWtc

Stars--Will not show in daylight settings (1/125 second shutter speed). Impossible!

"C" rock--it wasn't on the rock--a hair on a dirty print.

[PlutoTheSecond]

@AnonymousElektron Hammer/feather: The vacuum on the moon means no air resistance to hold up the feather.

Stars in the sky: The camera's brightness must be reduced so the moon does not appear white due to its high albedo, but it must be reduced so much that the stars do not appear.

[AnonymousElektron]

@LunarTuner not willing to confront the truth about 9/11 and building 7.

Why is it that a building that did't have anything hit it and was hardly on fire collapsed?

Never happened before ever site an example.

ALSO, how cell phones supposedly worked even back in 2001 from flight 93.

Explain!

Only now are phone companies and airlines saying you can start using cell phones and wifi to reach the ground from planes, no way they let you in 2001!!!

[LunarTuner]

@AnonymousElektron, maybe you didn't pay attention. What part of "no, we are NOT going to talk about another conspiracy theory on this site" did you not understand?

I'm not afraid of talking about anything, but this is MY page and it's not about 911, Loch Ness, Bigfoot, Aliens, Kennedy, Lincoln, Iraq, Watergate, The Elders of Zion, Roswell, Princess DIana or Teletubies! Why not? I believe in ORDER.

Take your 911 discussion to another page or prepare to be blocked.

Have a nice day!

[AnonymousElektron]

@FatherofSerpents oh yes, "father of serpents", I know who you are whereever you are.

The devil was speaking to me yesterday when my ex wife was getting oil changed.

Also, check out both "Loose Change" and "Zeitgeist" online.

Just youtube search for them free to watch today.

And "painful questions about 911"

If you're not afriad, then find out.

I think too many of you ppl are honestly terrified at the thought of it being an inside job you can't fathom it and don't want to.

Coward.

[AnonymousElektron]

@LunarTuner I'm sure if I talk about them too much I'm going to end up in an "accident" and something will happen to me if I speak out those thugs.,

[LunarTuner]

@AnonymousElektron, paranoid?

[davidlessig]

This video will not showcase the truth as obviously as "EXPOSED - Bart Sibrel is Caught Cheating" I'm thankful that there is such an active discussion going on here - how does a blind man know that anyone can see? - his own insecurity allows his faith in consensus or authority or his acknowledgement of the familiar allows his faith to be placed in those who have earned his trust.

[davidlessig]

let's all take a look at "EXPOSED - Bart Sibrel is Caught Cheating" from 3:23 to 3:26 - the "moon's regolith" is propelled into a parabolic in waves and then STOPPED by the atmosphere of Shepperton or 51 or wherever it was shot and falls straight down. Those parabolics would have continued unabated on the moon. If you can't see this then it is simply because you do not wish to see it.

[davidlessig]

I'm just looking for the truth - nothing more or less - no need to get personal and lump throw "conspiracy theory" around my neck because you can't explain the science.

[0311jonesy]

You two are leaving some very informative responses. I just wnted to add that the dust material that the mythbuster crew used was given to them by NASA. So the organization that may have lied abou the moon landing is supposed to hand over a legitimate sample that may debunk their lie?

[loperspest]

@0311jonesy

I have noticed the same phenomena with sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) when measuring it out. It makes a fine mold of the teaspoon measuring spoon, despite been a dry powder Also, images from the Lunokhod rovers show similar tracks.

mentallandscape*com/C_CatalogM­oon*htm

[thirdclass2006]

You can do the same experiment with dry flour, baking soda, or concrete mix.

Same results.

[VaicekaL]

I am still not convinced by this "proof". The regolith used in this "experiment" was already exposed to the water vapor of Earth atmosphere, so it already is "sticky". Second, this footprint is MUCH shallower and smoothier than the footprint on the photos of the moon landings. The "myth" is still not busted!!!

[thirdclass2006]

Try using concrete mix then. Or baking powder.

Do this yourself, and you can see that a dry material can leave a perfect impression.

[ytmoog]

@VaicekaL

Water boils in a vacuum, so if there was any water in the regolith it would quickly evaporate in the vacuum chamber.

[davidlessig]

LunarTuner - u have an agenda which takes precedence over facts - if u didn't you would recognize the fact that the regolith used in this experiment contains moisture as VaicekaL pointed out as there is no mention of subjecting the material to the 250F oven to essentially bake out the water. The moon with roughtly 1/6 the earth's gravitational mass only requires a minimum 2.4 km/s escape velocity for a molecule to leave its gravitational field

[davidlessig]

- a typical molecule of H20 at 250F would be excited to an AVERAGE speed on the order of 1 km/s (meaning the fastest molecules would be travelling much faster). Couple this with the moon's vacuum atmospere (no atmospheric partial pressure to prevent evaporation) and you have perfect conditions for baking the dust on the surface of the moon to zero moisture content fairly shortly.

[davidlessig]

The material used in this particular experiment was not kiln dried and therefore the experiment itself is flawed - purposely so to give a false result to convince an unsuspecting public who sadly is naive enough to put faith in your pseudo scientific explanation. By the way "conspiracy theory" is not an accurate term to describe someone who unlike you does not ignore facts.

[davidlessig]

The term is conspiracy scientist because as new facts are ascertained the theory is modified accordingly to maintain a desire for truth unlike your rubbage whose only goal is to peddle disinformation at worst and at best remain unenlightened.

[davidlessig]

There is no way to leave a foot print on the moon-period. It's not the vacuum that's the issue - it's the moisture content - this experiment does nothing to remove moisture from the Regolith!!!!!!!!!!

[LunarTuner]

@davidlessig I think you need to have a chat with a geologist. Moisture is not necessary if the content is not eroded. That is, particles mad smooth may require a secondary agent like water, but not the jagged, uneven particles of lunar regolith. Not all soil is alike.

[davidlessig]

i should clarify - you can leave a footprint - but certainly not one that is so well defined as the buzz aldrin one. Take a look at photos of footprints in mt etna's eruption in 2002 to get an idea. this is volcanic ash which has vapor content due to atmosphere of earth and the prints are much less distinct - one would expect even less distinctness on the moon.

[LunarTuner]

@davidlessig , sounds to me like comparing apples to oranges. Most regolith on the moon is not created by volcanic eruption. Keep in mind that lunar regolith is highly charged electrically, under very little magnetic field, gravitational influence and wild temperature differentials. I don't think your comparison helps your point.

[thirdclass2006]

Lunar regolith isn't the same as volcanic ash.

Most of the regolith is space dust or micrometeorites that have collected over billions of years. This forms a powdery surface whose particles interlock.

[ytmoog]

It did not need to be kiln dried, water boils in a vacuum at room temperature anyway.

Also the simulated regolith looked perfectly dry when it was put into the tray.

[shnopsnub]

I met a guy (dorm neighbor) who believed that almost every conspiracy theory was true. No matter how much evidence some of us showed him, or no matter how many times he contradicted himself, he wouldn't budge on the matters. All I learned from him is that some people live in their own realities and even direct proof won't change this (so arguing with conspiracy theory nuts can be funny for awhile but eventually leads to a head ache)

[LunarTuner]

shnopsnub, your point is well-taken. Personally, I look at a discussion with a conspiracy theorist as an exercise in epistemology or the basic application of the rules of logic. It also serves the purpose of exposing those who don't know about Apollo to some of the science associated with what happen. I'm perfectly willing to let others hold on to their opinions, however misguided they may be.

[FaithRationale]

LT,

Sand's used are less than that of the PAN's area. Some sands could be easily displaced. Another, they did not leave a deep impression on the sand, unlike that of the photo.

It's hard to believe the boy who cried wolf. Much more if an agency has been the subject of cover-ups..?

watch?v=V3Gf4liJjMA

[LunarTuner]

Faith, the point of this demo is to show that material can hold together despite not having any moisture in a vacuum. Personally, I wish they had used more material, then I'm sure the impression would have been deeper. Nonetheless, it holds together without moisture.

[mincepaw]

On U tube just watch the video 'Dark side of the moon' where Nixon's aids CIA Director General walters, donald rumsfeld, henry kissenger and chief of staff alexander haig all admit that the apollo 11 man on the moon was filmed in London MGM studio's by Stanley Kubric. Nixon ordered the killing of all the crew, Rogers, Dow, Brown and Stein along with many others. So if the top brass say they never went to the moon they never went to the moon, NASA you must be joking, moon landings

[LunarTuner]

mincepaw, as I mentioned on my other page...

mincepaw, "Dark Side of the Moon" is a "MOCKUMENTARY!" It was a joke! A prank! Director, William Karel was kidding! He, Rumsfeld, Kissinger, Haig, Kubric's wife...they were all in on this comedic documentary. Dow, Brown and Stein aren't real astronauts! You need to watch them at the end during the credits when they show the bloopers. Karel was making a comment about how easily gullible people are sucked in if they don't do their homework!

[LunarTuner]

Folks, I've blocked un4g1v3n1. I hate doing this, but my channel clearly explains: "if you are verbally abusive, threatening or if you "hijack" the comments section, you will disappear." I also warned him, yet he has responded by calling me "thick" and accusing me of ignorance, laziness and lying.

I can endure a lot, but when it's combined with "hijacking" a page, I see no reason to endure it. If un4g1v3n1 wants to apologize, I'm happy to let him comment, because I think it could be useful.

[un4g1v3n1]

Again...for those who can't figure it out. No pans on the moon. Pan sides causes the compression to make the print. Again, did anyone see pans all over the Apollo movie set, so they could make those nice deep prints?

Didn't think so...

[LunarTuner]

Again...for those who selectively block certain facts from the consciousness. Note 2:35 The regolith does not go to the edges of the pan. That renders the "pressure from the edges of the pan" idea pointless.

[un4g1v3n1]

NASA opens their doors to mythbusters...Hmm..they must be feeling the pressure...Maybe the Chinese can hire the mythbusters to created some bullsh1t experiments to cover up their faked EVA.

[LunarTuner]

un4g1v3n1, Oh big deal! They could have done this in any number of vacuum chambers around the world. It makes no difference! Disney World will open its doors to you. Does that make you Mickey Mouse?

[un4g1v3n1]

You just don't get it do you tuner? Why would anyone spend so much time spreading propaganda for NASA? Has anyone asked that question? Do you ask yourself that question LT? Can I ask you? Why do you spend so much time lying to people for NASA? Making up inane experiments to try to disprove actual Apollo footage showing two lights being reflected in an Apollo helmet faceshield. How do you possibly benefit by spending all that time lying for Apollo? It's just inconceivable.

[LunarTuner]

I don't spend 1 second of my time lying for anyone. I believe you are absolutely, categorically, scientifically wrong. I'm here to make sure that the ideas you promote get crushed. My benefit? The satisfaction of defending one of mankind's finest moments and giving you a bad day.

[un4g1v3n1]

If you don't spend any time lying for anyone, why do you continue to lie about the major solar flares during Apollo missions. Is it ignorance you are suffering from. If so, go to the NGDC I linked in Lunarcy: NASA's Radiation Problem III's info box. Then go to the list of MAJOR solar flares by DATE. Then, learn the dates of the Apollo moon movie broadcasts. Find the major solar flares. And after that, you can fix the ignorance of major solar flare problem you seem to be suffering from!

[LunarTuner]

un4g1v3n1, go make your solar flare comments on a solar flare page. I'm not allowing you to hijack this page with an endless search in a database you don't understand for something not under discussion here.

[un4g1v3n1]

This experiment is so easy to see through. The sides of the pan created the pressure necessary to create the print.

Do any of you idiots realize that the apollonots were not walking on sand held together by the walls of a pan?

Or are all of you complete nitwits?

[LunarTuner]

un4g1v3n1, Oh, like the sides of a pan are needed to create compression? Do you think there's no pressure from adjacent particles?

[un4g1v3n1]

Not like the walls of a pan. But you are probably too thick to understand that right? Go make some more videos with bowls and sunglasses and compare them to an Apollo space helmet. You see, you and mythbusters have the same moronic experiment techniques in common. Anyone here remember astronots stepping into pans of lunar regolith on the Apollo moonset? NO? Didn't think so!!!

[LunarTuner]

un4g1v3n1, let me give you some advice. You might get away with name calling and insulting on other people's pages, but this is mine. If you want to make another comment, quit the crap!

I'm afraid, your "anyone can see that" comment is unsubstantiated and totally subjective. Note: the regolith doesn't even go to the edges of the pan! Note: the boot ribbing isolates any possible pressure. There's not extra pressure in the middle of the print.

[un4g1v3n1]

Hmm..interesting...you try and defame me with your video...then when you get the respone you wanted...you threaten...Okay...I can play your game LT.

The downward pressure pushes the 'regolith' against the bottom and sides of the pan. To think otherwise is to ignore basic science of what happens to anything if you apply pressure to it in a contained area. Of course you might want to check with a scientist if you doubt my common sense power of reasoning! Nice trick though. NASA would be proud!

[LunarTuner]

"Against the bottom" Do you think that on the moon the material below an astronaut endlessly gives away and offers no resistance? I've already explained that the sides of the pan aren't even touched by this regolith. Talk about ignoring basic science!!

[LunarTuner]

for the record, showing someone else's error is not the same thing as "defaming" them.

[bus114]

Tory says it all: "In your face, conspiracy theorists!"

[wesleyjames81]

well now its pretty obvious who funded this episode... im going to look for a video of them debunking why there was no crator left by the rocket of the lander if one exists because that is still a pretty big question in my mind.

[LunarTuner]

wesleyjames81, at the point when the LM landed, its weight was 15,804 lb (on earth), 2,634 lbs. on the moon. That's how much downward force was needed. Considering that the lunar regolith was only about 3 to 5 inches deep and the layers of soil underneath were far more dense, it would be pretty hard to make a crater. You'd be more likely to see a crater under a Chinook helicopter or a Harrier Jump Jet, but you don't, do you? Those vehicles have to deal the earth gravity.

[SpreadingtheMuse]

I take the lack of a crater as PROOF that they went, as it proves the desperation of the nay-sayers to find any evidence worth a damn.

Why is it we needed youtube to tell us about the stupendous crater, and no physicist or engineer EVER noticed it until you showed up?

Could it be, maybe, that all the engineers and physicists (translation: anyone credible) DID see it, but are experienced enough to know why such things occur without jumping to the stupidest conspiracy they could find?

[chavsrshite]

if they tested it that way and it worked then whos to say they didnt fake it the same way

[LunarTuner]

chavsrshite, you missed the point. Conspiracy theorists have suggested footprints cannot be made on lunar regolith because of the absence of moisture. This debunks that claim.

[Skytroop]

Terrestrial soil is subject to fluidization resulting from the presence of atmospheric gases within it. Lunar Regolith is essentially anhydrous, and compact. Fluidization occurs under specific circumstances and is due to the liberation of solar wind volatiles trapped within it. Cohesion is attributable mainly to unsatisfied electron bonds. There are also major differences in the composition of the two materials.

It is estimated the footprints on the moon will last for about 2,000,000 years.

[istartedi]

This makes sense to me. My aunt sent me a jar of Mt. St. Helens dust after the 1980 eruption. Volcano dust is basicly fine particles of pumice. It was fresh and did not have time to weather either. It didn't flow like sand at all, and the jar never had any condensation in it or anything. Of course that's not as scientific as the mythbusters thing; but it makes sense. I'd like to see them try the test with dry volcanic ash.

[MistaEks]

The dolly in the video doesnt know basic science. She said if it made a print here it would definitley make one on the moon since gravity here 6x greater. Complete nonsense. There's less likey to be a print where the force applied is less ie on the moon. After she makes the comment they all pat themsleves on the back, so to speak..... what a load of bollocks!

[LunarTuner]

MistaEks, "The Dolly," Kari Byron, is smarter than you know. Her point is that on earth, a print in dry sand breaks down because of earth's gravity. Since the gravity on the moon is 6 times less, the edges of the print are less likely to break down. Despite earth gravity, this print holds up. (personally, I wish they used a deeper pan of regolith, but perhaps that stuff's not easy to come by)

[FaithRationale]

LT,

Does Kari Byron think the sand on earth is the same as that in the moon? That's not being smart. Prove that the sand in the moon have the same composition (moisture, thickness, etc, etc) as that of earth.

[LunarTuner]

Faith, if you listened carefully, you would note that the sand used in the demonstration was chosen because it was a reconstruction of the regolith found on the moon. Geologists are quite capable of reproducing material that matches what is found on the moon. We know that the lunar regolith has NO moisture and lacks any evidence of typical erosion as found on earth, so such material was duplicated for this demo.

[LunarTuner]

"Then tell me how they decompressed, getting in and out of the lunar module." Both a/nauts are suited, the entire ascent stage is compressed/decompressed while they're suited. They hooked into onboard life support before ditching their PLSS out the door. They closed the hatch and pressured properly before the helmets came off.

[LunarTuner]

"Explain how they filmed the take off from the moon?" That camera was the RCA J-Series

Ground-Commanded Television Assembly (GCTA). It was remotely controlled from Houston. Google: "The Cameras of Apollo" and go to the listing of the same name. The A-15,16, 17 ascent stage liftoffs are explained there.

[apolloscam]

"All we really proved was how easy it is to fake a Moon landing on Earth." - Mythbusters

[LunarTuner]

apolloscam, where did you get this quote? It's not on the mythbusters' episode.

[LunarTuner]

IA, SURE! They could have faked it with 20 acres of synthetic lunar regolith! This was a defensive proof--a proof that it is possible.

[gold95]

They picked the most silly and ridiculous aruments and busted them. I culd have done that in my sleep. Bust the difficult ones.. if you are serious.

[LunarTuner]

gold95, thanks for your thoughts. It seems (based on this and other comments on my channel) you're interested in more from the Mythbusters. 1 of the things I didn't post was their intro where they explained that time restrains meant they'd only deal with the 5 most common/popular objections. I'd love to see them bust more stuff too. There's an old adage, "One can't say everything every time one says anything." Frankly, I'm glad they didn't go down every rabbit hole. Maybe more later.

[gold95]

He;s right, NASA is confident that the moonlanding is a myth. LOL

[LiquidFl4me]

ok so they really went to the moon

[gold95]

Yes and the WMDs were real...

[pronkb000]

Yes, Bush lying about Iraq is clear proof that NASA faked moon landings 30 years ago. Okay...

[gold95]

No itrs proof that people will believe anything they are told. Isn't it amazing how the moon mission went perfect first time around? They only had to travel 250,000 miles in radiation clustered unknown space, with unknown particles and sun flares and they amde it, back too, in one piece. Amazing! And more than one time too. Incredible...

[c6gunner]

"No I'm proof that people will believe anything they are told."

There - fixed that for you.

[gold95]

Yeah I know YOU are proof that you will believe anything you are told. Nothing new there. There, I fixed it. I love how you avoided to comment on the perfect mission in a tincan.

[LiquidFl4me]

i guess i want to believe that we did go to the moon because i want to believe that mankind is smart lol, but i am, and thanks to myth busters i know that we really did

[gold95]

You are right they did an amazing job provingt hey went to the moon. A footprint, shaking the flag, and a shark with a laserbeam, and BOOM, proof we went tot he moon, Just amazing how the took 3 men in a tincan and flew 250,000 miles through unknown hostile space and radiation and had a successful trip, and they came back too. WOW!

[LiquidFl4me]

yeah i reckon, and now theres more commanding copasity and technological stuff in our mobiles then the hole space ship, AMAZING and now mr bush wants to colonise the moon xD

[gold95]

I don't get your point. Can you explain if they used film or video to transmit footage from the moon, and if so, how was it done. Using satellites? And how long was the delay? Who taped the lift off?

[c6gunner]

Yes, it was amazing. Shows what human beings can do when they set their minds to it. To any rational person it would be an inspiration to strive for greater achievments. To morons like you, "It'z an ABVIUS CONSPIRCIEZ LOLZ!!!11!"

None of the things you've said in any way disprove the Mythbusters' points, nor do any of your comments raise doubt about the moon landing. Since you insist on posting dozens of utterly retarded messages, I'm marking them all as spam. I suggest others do the same.

[gold95]

Oops you failed to answer. Explain how they filmed the take off from the moon? Video or film?

Go hang out with Big Foot and you guys can wait for Jesus to come back on a white horse.

[c6gunner]

"Explain how they filmed the take off from the moon?"

Holy fuck ... I KNEW you were stupid, but I didn't know you were THAT stupid.

By the way, have you ever heard of "google"? It's this wonderful website where you can type in a question like:

"Explain how they filmed the take off from the moon?"

And get an immediate answer from dozens of sources! It's fantastic, really ... you should give it a try some time.

Moron.

[gold95]

How did I know YOU weren't gonna explain it. Instead you try with your ad hominem attacks. YOU tell me how it was done. then tell me how long the camera was left running. Let's start witht that. Then tell me how they decompressed, getting in and out of the lunar module.

[GrifOli]

gold95, if we tell you everything we know about proof of moon landing, you will ask for sources, quotes or experts comments, so instead of telling you everything, we ask you to search by yourself on credible websites.

But I can give you a hand for your question; the camera that recorded the take off from the moon was remotely controlled by people on Earth (it could all be set up in advance knowing the speed of ascend)

[SpreadingtheMuse]

"Just amazing how the took 3 men in a tincan and flew 250,000 miles through unknown hostile space and radiation and had a successful trip, and they came back too. WOW!"

Thats why its best to leave science to the scientists, and engineering to the engineers.

;)

Trying to skip a decades education and yet still pretend to be experienced enough to argue at their level will only expose the insecure bluffers and phonies for what they are.

[gold95]

Since YOU seem to know, why don'y you educate me. If YOU don't know, then don't pass it off to others and then call people phony. if YOU know something I don't, then share it with me, but don't give me the "others know better."

[SpreadingtheMuse]

"but don't give me the "others know better."

The problem is, others DO know better. The very fact that you felt it necessary to ignorantly mouth off on a topic several pay-grades above your own is proof enough that you value web-dork innuendo far more than expert advice. If you really cared what any expert had to say, you would have ASKED, not barged in here like a dufus, thinking watching a 30 sec dork video makes you an expert.

You have questions? Ask them POLITELY with zero snarkiness.

[LacrymalNirvana]

hmm where do you think the "11" in "apollo 11" came from.. yeah go figure

[SpreadingtheMuse]

"Isn't it amazing how the moon mission went perfect first time around?"

What part of Apollo "ELEVEN" didnt you understand? They hade ten previous capsules and/or moonshots to work out the bugs. Dont look dumb over EASY stuff for god sake.

"radiation"

And dont get too scared of a big word you hear on TV. I have yet to find a hoax believer who can explain why radiation is so gosh-darn EVIL, let alone how much is in space, how much is lethal, and how to block it.

[gold95]

How do YOU know this? Isn't it funny how NASA say that there is no life on the moon due to radiation. I guess you don't find them credible. Or you can ask why nuclear facilities try to keep it safe from radiation spills.  Why do people wear protective clothing when they are near radiation?

Sinc eoyu appear to be an expert why don't you explain why radiation is not "evil."

[SpreadingtheMuse]

"How do YOU know this? "

All technical workers are required to have 40 hours of HAZMAT training yearly.

So, in other words, duh. ;)

Maybe you should have asked someone with experience what they thought, instead of cut and pasting the first nerd site you found. If radiation was NOT so easy to block, nuclear reactors would kill everyone within 50 miles. Why dont they?

Spacesuits can block cosmic radiation. If you say they cant, I want a DETAILED explanation, not a frantic flying guess.