any one can write data in here but we all know there are no files or original telemetry records of the moon missions. NASA says they were Lost somehow-- so pipercub can type whatever he/she wants...it doesnt change what we saw when a guy was asked to do a special show on tv about armstrong and the more the guy learned the less he assumed the moon missions were real...GLEN BECK show --DID WE REALLY GO TO THE MOON,when he was at CNN-- it was a big deal but not discussed much in these moon debates
so let me get this straight then, the main defence you have to criticism about this footage, is "chimps throwing poo" wow, what a winning statement, you've converted me with it... MORONS, YOUR BUS IS LEAVING
have you ever tried even steering a radio controled car with a 6 second delay? And how did we get that video back? NASA says there was 20 second delay and as I understand it there had to be someone there to send the video back. Maybe they picked it up on a later mission?
About the question of thrust, the ascent vehicle required much less thrust than the Saturn launch vehicle did on Earth for a number of reasons.
1. The force of acceleration caused by gravity on the moon is only around 1.6 m/s^2, much less than Earth's 9.8 m/s^2.
2. The ascent vehicle is much much lighter than Saturn V, mainly because it only needs to boost 2 people into lunar orbit, which is much easier to obtain, rather than boost enough fuel to get to the moon into Earth orbit.
3. Because there is no atmosphere on the moon, you don't need to climb outside of it to orbit stably. Technically, the ascent vehicle could have orbited the moon at just above hilltop altitude if it so chose, but that would be silly, and unproductive.
4. Let's assume that the ascent module was accelerating at 2 m/s^2 (probably not accurate, but enough to overcome lunar gravity.) Since F=m*a, 4780 kg * 2 m/s^2 = 9.56 kN of thrust, which wouldn't produce much visible exhaust.
Im not a beleiver in everything infact im probably 1 of the people thats called a conspiracy nut but the pitures of the lander taking off used the lunar rover to film the whole thing,as for the flag ive tested in a real lab vacume a flag with a rigid pole along the top edge like the 1 planted and infact it moves more than it does with an atmosphere,>simple rule of physics no atmosphere = less/no air resistance = moving flag, atmosphere = air resistence,=less movement,the flag would move.
@g8k8g9k9 i explained this before - if you use just one material and it is moist it will react in 1 Earth Atmosphere pressure and 1 Earth G and it all fall to the ground as if there is the vacuum of space and no dust cloud...slowing the motion is simple enough-- slow the video speed playback transmit to the studio or NASA offices and record it as beinf L I V E from the moon-- THIS IS MISSION CONTROL.. wow i did it....i am excited being part of the SPACE PROGRAM/ i do not list you as spam btw
So do you have the specification document for the lunar lander? I take it you do, because you say it is not capable to land on the Moon and take off again.
Yes. I know about the crash. I wanted to get a picture (But couldn't.), because you said they couldn't train for the Moon landing. Yes and what about the other simulators and the other preparatory missions?
PS. NASA also take the most experienced pilots for astronauts. To increase their chances for success, I guess.
That's why they kept on training and used highly experienced pilots in the first place.
Do you think that other pilots don't "crash" when they are on simulators?
Clearly they have to reduce light going into cameras because of glare (Go outside when the sun is shining and look at sheet of white paper. Notice the fucking glare!). So stars will not apear on film.
Now google earth orbit, like I said before. You will find a hell of alot of pictures taken in outer space without stars in them.
How did the technician track the Challenge ascent stage? He had paid close attention to the way the ascent stages on Apollo 15 and 16 flew, and was able to send directions to the Rover camera ahead of time so that by the time the signals reached the camera, the camera was tracking the ascent stage.
That camera was controlled from earth, by a very talented camera orperator who was working with around a 6 second delay between the camera controls at houston and the camera on the moon. It was a very tense time, if the guy was slightly off with the use of the camera controls, he would've missed the lander taking off!
kris i have to go do some stuff..but the point is-- til humans go into the van allen belt we dont know what the end result will be-- just because you and a few men from Apollo say they went to the moon and came back ok-- fine= but the absence of humans in space in a big way 40 yrs after apollo is a major reason to wonder what is going on...sorry-- gotta go -- read up on science learning about VAB since 1969 and also the danger to humans from the sun during prolonged periods of travel in space
@DERRUFO360 ..I can see you're not your average truther. you do have a way with words,infact I'd bet the farm that you're a scientist and a very good one at that..however I don't agree with your math skills,, for you certainly can add TROUBLE::divide ATTENTION::and most of all multiply IGNORANCE. I have to leave now, but its been a treat reading your comments, as too your complete lack of familiarity with the Apollo missions,this we won't speak of again..no need for a reply....THX
@krisdevalle i specifically mentioned altitude kris to show that when you say the ISS goes thru the VAB every day the point is whats the altitude and at which parts of the VAB are most serious energized particle reactions ? etc kris no one goes into the VAB to do such research do they kris which is why you said in a diff message-- what would the astros do at 800 mile orbital circuit? duh.. the question is answered kris-- to locate the nature of and reactions of the energized particles & range
@DERRUFO360 First. Please, give a scientifical reason why we should spend a lot of money going on flying people to the moon or up in high orbits. What's to gain?
Second. Armstrong didn't escape from a LM prototype or anything like that. It was a LLTV, a pilot training vehicle with a turbo jet, not rocket engine. The only resemblence to a LM was it's four legs. Not even designed and built by Grumman, which built the LM. Check the facts!
@YDDES yes you are right-- it was a simulartor-- my mistake in using the words saying it was a LEM simulator--- yes it did not look like the LEM-- so what is the point here? to make me appear wrong or stupid about NASA-- ?? that is krisdevalle's job....
kris tries to take an incident of a problem when the crew tried to "go deep" and since i mentioned it kris then demands I tell him if the crew were harmed as if the 460 mile orbit was the reason for these debates--as if the title of the videos online are all titled : should NASA ever go above 300 miles orbit of Earth ? haha-- kris you take issues or ideas from comments and try to make it seem to be the problem...the problem is the VAB.they located anti matter in there from some energy reactions
@DERRUFO360 Point is, Derr, you tried to use this example as some evidence that that Van Allen belts were lethal.
This is not particularly strong evidence, because nothing happened to the astronauts. They saw some flashes of light in their eyeballs. No-one died, no-one's eyeballs melted or exploded.
So next time, try to get some better evidence. Because what you presented was pathetic.
come to think of it since the VAB is so safe I wonder more missions dont go farther out in space-- not needed to have a perfect circular orbit far out in space but almost circular or a diff kind-- the parabolic orbit.say 800 miles out from earth.. i wonder why that is NEVER DONE>>. er kris ?
haha kris man everytime i look at this video i am amazed how nice and smooth the background terrain is-- arent you umm amazed kris ? what with all the stuff flying around in space-- i dont see a sign of one fresh crater
hell kris everyone knows it was at the highest altitude of the shuttle when it was doing on a repair mission on hubble- (the telescope not bill clintons rich pal ) that the crew were annoyed by energized particles- was it 455 miles up? i cant recall...so no the ISS is at a much Lower and safer altitude .. the Hubble crew-- that was getting near the business in the belts.kris and annoying heteros you call fun...i call you a constant reminder that yer only half right here all the time....get it ?
so you see all-- its really hard for NASA to get there but a piece of cake to get around on the moon...look forward to your vacation there as we are now 43 years into the FUTURE and everything is easy to do if you have a battery and a computer program and some rocket fuel...go get em tigers....enjoy the MOON-- NASA's playground
hard to get there-- tough conditions on the surface but the NASA astronauts did their duty-- not only that- some live long into their 70s and 80s...no problem taking a BATH in the van allen Rad belt. nah no problem.but look at the happy jolly -crews-- working and making many scripted comments about what they are doing...some seen hopping along. some are seen skipping...there is no miked sounds of heavy breathnig..( no intense breathing on the recordings as the mic is right next to their mouths
i dislike your approach to this kris-- i wont answer your questions.. i will pose questions the american people demand answers about from NASA and my comments are on this video and some other sites in youtube...in future the truth will be known- as i have said else where-- it might take another 100 years but the people of the USA are used to being ignored-- the JFK assassination was never fully resolved and that was --gee-- what do you know?-- that death also occurred inthe 60s like A ONE fire
i am just a hoaxtard-- i assume if panoramic shots with shadows are seen in images--well silly me assume we would see something like it in this amazing video...its is amazing because there is not one shadow seen any where oops wait there is one- directly under the LEM,,, does this mean the sun was directly overhead? I am not an expert-- is it possible for the sun to be at noon type position and thus no shadows are seen ? as on earth ? gee... i sure hope so or you pro NASA guys are busted
@DERRUFO360 Pretty much answered your own question there. Good work.
Sun was high. There you go.
Next time you want to make some retarded statement like it doesn't look right, just remember, you have never been to the moon, so you don't even know what it should look like.
I don't give a flying fuck if you dislike my 'approach'. I question the logic, theories and general intelligence of those morons who make retarded claims like you. Because they always are lacking.
err kris i was also curious why the govt and NASA discussed the next manned mission would be to MARS ?? That got the moon hoaxers interest and then NASA started the Moon mission lectures to the news reporters saying that the moon missions would also occur....
kris you are exposing yourself-- the insults-- the pained whiny protests---the terrain I am talkng about is every where in the background--no irregular shadows cast on the surface any where... you know it- i know it-- you lose buddy... you lose
kris of course you would continue to mention non manned probes to the moon rather than my own actual inquiries-- my questions are for all-- not just you...you use insults and condemnation to silence those who wonder-- must be in your job description to be a troll here... btw--i stated there are no manned missions to the moon since 1972 ( if Apollo was real ) and i wonder why ....of course you have explained why havent you kris ? you must make all the decisions of the USA govt for NASA... haha
kris and yddes have taken my concerns and added the word print paper to their days coffee filter and made some hot brew...i dont think its going to work this time fellas... you are stuck with the moon,no human presence on the surface of moon and you sit here and type why...to me and millions who want to know the truth...haha--kris can you add to yddes reply to me-- when i wondered why as the LEM sits there all the terrain seen has no irregular terrain ? no boulders no shadows. stone on stone ?
kris is explaining once again that man went to the moon with an operation that was successful 6 times and no fatalities or errors yet there are no men in orbit of the moon or on the surface and kris tells me to wise up ? haha kris we are concerned about whether or not there were moon missions or not-- we see no evidence of moon exploration by the 2 most advanced nations on earth since 1972....and you tell me - no worries ? haha
based on the current discussion if it so easy to do earth moon orbitals where are the for profit MOON RIDES ?? 40 years after Apollo one capsule fire /?? show me the money--....you guys who are pro Landing will poo poo this observation and say-- oh no its just too expensive derr-- thats why no companies try it..haha....yddes and kris explain to me as if to a child that there were so many test flights of Apollo LEM- for all we know it was primarily for MANNED SKYLAB..first in space habitats.
YDDES, If they did change the whole magazine they still couldn't do it wearing gloves like that, and where did they put the old magazines, also one picture every thirty seconds, not much time for anything else was there? oh and the oxygen supply is via tube for the astronauts at ISS.
@thecubanism As I said, and as You can see, for example on "Apollo 12 image library", MANY of the "thousands of photos" were taken in space and not on the lunar surface. Also, there You can see that they took a bunch of photos from one spot then moved on to set up equipment or collect samples, sometimes stopping to take a bunch of photos again. I suggest You check out some source describing how the film in the hasselblad was changed.
@thecubanism @thecubanism As I said, and as You can see, for example on "Apollo 12 image library", MANY of the "thousands of photos" were taken in space and not on the lunar surface. Also, there You can see that they took a bunch of photos from one spot then moved on to set up equipment or collect samples, sometimes stopping to take a bunch of photos again. I suggest You check out some source describing how the film in the hasselblad was changed.
@thecubanism Also, check some information and pictures of astronauts working outside the Shuttle and ISS, because You seem to suffer from some kind of delusion. They do NOT have any "oxygen supply via tube" (where are those "tubes" connected?). They have backpacks like the Apollo astronauts.
This seems to be the typical "I don't understand it, so it can't be true..." as so many hoax-believers seem to suffer from. Better to check available facts than to just make up your own assumptions
Here's a diagram of the Hassleblads. Note in particular the large magazine size, and the swing tab that even someone with a flipper for a hand could use.
ww w. myspacemuseum. com/70mmb. jpg
Now, what if they too 15 pictures in one minute? Then they would have the next seven and a half minutes to do other stuff. Or 30 pictures in the first two minutes, then 15 minutes to do other stuff.
Have some thought, seriously, about what you are saying.
NASA gangsters will begin editing in stars to their hoax photographs and TV video, and design a new CIA legend, a fairy tale, that for some reason in the 60s & 70s NASA *had to* for some obscure reason, edit OUT the stars for public consumption.
do we have the tech in 1969 to make a more realistic moon studio setting ? some one said there is not even one background irregular terrain shadow seen-this is really amazing-- this is real ? haha
the camera was rigged with the ability to follow the eagle, the astronauts have said this time and time again, look it up. think we don't have the technology to have a camera auto focus, auto move? we did and do. case closed.
also about flights to the moon - there was no way to rescue Landed crew if there was a problem...seems a bit much to go to the moon in such a desperate way since this amazing technology could be used to send 2 ships -- 2 A C M -- apollo Lem module and return rocket motor plus fuel combos to the moon; This way you have a back up rescue plan. But it never occurred--if you can run a vessel like A 13 with the battery power of a clock radio and the guys dont die you can pretty much do anything. : )
@DERRUFO360 You can tell from tone & inflection in astronauts’ voices, their choice of words, and their diarrhea-of-the-mouth verbosity, that they didn’t go.
No 3 people from this earth simultaneously aware of a razor’s edge that their lives would be hanging on, would retain such cavalier flamboyancy.
Extreme FEAR.
Astronauts walking on lunar surface would NEVER be more than a heartbeat away from each other. They would NEVER for any period of time allow the other to be out of sight.
@centurion180ad Well, these men were professional military test pilots, testing the newest and fastest aircraft for the first time, used to risk their lives on an everyday basis. Voluntarily. They weren't as easily frightened as You.
Cowards wouldn't have applied for that job.
Being a fighter pilot in war is at least as dangerous. Yet, many men work very hard to get that job. But, as I said, not all are so easily scared as You, as it seems...
@YDDES You have not flown in combat where death is immediate in proximity.
You are not qualified to have an opinion on this matter.
I know those queer school boys didn't walk on the moon. They are overpaid CRIMINAL actors playing make believe. That explains their teenage chatter, at 1 point the 2 jackasses are SINGING.
SOME of those crooks had military experience means that had they ACTUALLY been on Luna, they’d know damn well how proximately dangerous of a situation they were in.
@centurion180ad I'm quite qualified to have an opinion on if it's dangerous to fly combat missions in war. Do You know how many pilots and other crew members have died in war? Are You qualified? Have You ever piloted an aircraft? I have.
What do you know about the astronauts? Neil Armstrong, for example, was a well known pilot long before he joined Apollo. He fought in Korea and was one of the pilots who flew the X-15 and several other experimental aircraft. Why would he be scared, like You?
@centurion i once again agree with centurion --a lack of caution or fear-- what we call-- casting aside all caution to the wind is what we see in some of the NASA films as the project managers must have decided : Lets give the taxpayers a entertaining show-- because its getting boring going to the moon perfectly 6 times--the main point as usual is: astro falls down and doesnt fear his suit will puncture and he will die..because there are no melted sand glass shards in moondust-its a studio=yes.
@DERRUFO360 There were no way to rescue the Mercury, Gemini and Shuttle crews either, if the return rockets had failed. Yet they flew A LOT of missions. NASA, and the astronauts were willing to take risks at every manned rocket launch. Just as the Soviets did, and still do. There were some "plans" to have rescue missions ready for Apollo, but it was deemed unnecessary and too expensive.
What "battery power of a clock radio"? Apollo 13 used the LM's power after the explosion.
yddes training prevents crashing-- there were no training flights to the moon -- only moon missions which involved long duration lunar surface visits...and then engine re-start and success-- each time-- amazing-- maybe too amazing
@DERRUFO360 You fucking moron - look up Apollo 10. It tested the engine, it just didn't land.
Look, I know it must be fun to say stupid shit all the time and never check it, but the progression from Apollo 1 to Apollo 11 tells a story of tests, rehearsals, and basically a step by step procedure that led to the moon landing.
Ignorant fucks like you could learn a lot if you just read about the preceding Apollo missions. Why don't you? Just try it.. for once.
@kris ok kris -- since it was so easy to orbital and return to earth why is there no space stations around the moon with men in them ? i am so curious-- please tell me kris that the same govt that gives billions of dollars YEARLY to islamic nations that hate our guts would not make attempts to conquer space but made heroiic efforts--3 men at a time in a small capsule and LEM to win the so-called MOON RACE- its been 40 years since Apollo1 fire -- we arent as stupid as you make us out to be....
There is a space station around the moon - it just doesn't have men in it.
It's called the LRO and you do not need to resupply it, send more food or water or air, it doesn't get homesick, or ill, and it almost completely impervious to solar flares.
What would men in a lunar space station do that a robot space station couldn't?
Smarten up please. You do this all the time. Never really think about the solution.
@DERRUFO360 How would "training flights to Moon" be executed according to You? Apollo 8 orbited Moon. Apollo 10's LM made a descent and restart without actually landing. The astronauts trained for hundreds of hours in simulators.
What more would they have done before landing?
Why not "engine re-start and success-- each time"? The engines had been extensively tested. The fuels were hypergolic. No ignition system needed, the fuel ignited when the two components blended.
yddes explains the invention of breathing devices very well except we do not know if they were ever demonstrated any where but on the moonwalks...1969 is different from the shuttle system that came about 12 years later
@DERRUFO360 You can always invent Your own reasons why the lunar landings "must" have been faked. Man had travelled in space for 8 years when they landed on Moon. Of course the scientists and technicians knew how to supply spacesuits with enough oxygen. Any reason they would not? During Apollo 9, in Earth orbit, the spacesuits were tested outside the spaceship.
Maybe it's "amazing" to You that they didn't crash on Moon, but not to someone who knows and understands the technology involved.
cubanism that is a good point on the breathing time the moonauts supposedly had...very interesting,, i wonder if those devices were ever allowed to be seen by the public or was it secret inventions of the defense dept ? : )
And as for the Gene Cerman interview, well, no-one in their right mind could believe this faker is telling the truth, come on, you have to agree with me on that one.
WayneHarrison, so a photo was taken every 30 seconds, not from what I have seen, they would have had no time for anything else,and they changed the film in a pair of sausage-fingered gloves, adjusted the settings, and took perfect images all without a viewfinder, oh yes, and while we are at it a diver has about an hour's oxygen in his tanks, these jokers had 4 hours, explain that one please.
@thecubanism If You go to a site where ALL the lunar photos are published, You'll find that A LOT of them are very bad. Wrongly exposed, tilted and out of focus. But, of course no newspaper, magazine or book have had any interest in publishing those photos. And, they didn't change film rolls, they changed the whole magazines.
There are descriptions about the spacesuits. Check them. And, while doing that, contemplate how the astronauts at ISS can stay outside for hours...
Just Googled. Earth orbit photos. Could not get one pic with stars in them either.
USSR sent a satelite to the moon during the Apollo 11 mission. It flew over the Eagle landing site and crashed on the moon.
Now if the moon landings were fake, why would USSR not tell it to the world. It would have been a propaganda coup for them. Or was the Soviet Union also not real?
@g8k8g just for fun tell us how NASA achieved100 per cent success rate at landing booster rocket strapped washing machines on the moon with a 1/6 th earth gravity? the astronauts had no real way to train-- since NASA never went the normal route-- space station around moon and then train men how to land the LEMs using the moon-- duh.how did nasa put 6 missions perfectly on the moon ? no crashes ?no rocket engine or booster throttle//switch trouble ? how ? not counting A13 a 100 % success rate ?
@DERRUFO360 Why would they crash on Moon? How many advanced aircraft of new types crash at their first (or even tenth) flight? They were the top of the top of test pilots. They trained extensively in simulators and the LLTV vehicles. They also tested the real LM, manned and unmanned in Earth orbit and manned in lunar orbit (Apollo 10). The Shuttle, much more complicated than the LM, failed 2 times during more than 130 flights. Why would the LM fail during only 6 landings?
@DERRUFO360 NASA gangsters will begin editing in stars to their hoax photographs or TV video and design a new CIA legend, a fairy tale, that for some reason in the 60s & 70s NASA *had to* for some obscure reason, edit OUT the stars for public consumption.
At the time corporation United States was FEEDING the Soviet Union. If syndicate United States told them to shut up or no food, the Soviets would have shut up.
@centurion180ad OK, don't forget to tell me when " NASA gangsters will begin editing in stars to their hoax photographs or TV video" in Your fantasy world.
In the meantime, I suggest that You study some optics, camera technology and astronomy. Then even You may be able to understand, even if just a little, why no stars are seen on the lunar surface photos.
Apollo photography in particular question is of LEM & Command Module allegedly orbiting Luna over its Dark Side, both independently T.V. videoing each other.
A T.V. camera does not expose film; it produces a SIGNAL that contains its images. NEVER in *any* Apollo T.V. video or still photograph is a star, planet or Milky Way visible.
This is impossible.
A cheap ass hand video, will photograph stars at night.
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel Honestly, can You take a picture of the stars with the same settings on the camera (aperture and exposing time) as when You photograph a sunlit landscape? Can You???
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel That didn't answer my question. Can You photograph the stars at night with THE SAME SETTINGS on the camera as You use to photograph a brightly sunlit landscape? Because, that was what the astronauts were doing: Photographing a brightly sunlit landscape. Has nothing to do with the atmosphere, only with setting of the exposure time and aperture. No way the stars could be seen on the photos of the (properly) exposed lunar landscape. Who's the "idiot" here?
Hey dipshit. Look on this page on the right. One of the links is "The most important picture ever taken." If you watch it you will see, amongst other things, photos of the Hublbe telescope with no stars!
@krisdevalle at night the bright sunlight is not hitting the atmosphere. During the day when it is, the air slightly refracts the light in all directions, and through the very deep atmosphere, the light is refracted very significantly to produce the blue color you see. KTHX
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel ydddes looks like hoodwink is right this time, and also even if there is a large amount of sun reflection going back off the moon surface there are the areas of the moon that NASA "LANDED" in that are darker areas and thus less sunrays bouncing back to space-- so still no stars seen >? NASA planners = another mistake-= with your scripted studio productions.. you cant expect us to believe the stars would not be seen if the lunar surface the moonauts are on is dark material.
@prosperomage Multiple video captures of our moon, planets & stars are *easily* accomplished with a *used* Samsung C3O3 cellular telephone handunit, purchased second hand for 2,500 Philippine Pesos.
A 1960s commercial television camera with a huge thick lens aperture and an industrial grade focus target would have NO PROBLEM, capturing stars even in the presence of glare.
@centurion180ad -- You're really not at all familar with 1960's video technology, are you?
How old are you?
You make assumptions and write about technology as if you're quite young. 1960's video equipment had trouble resolving a good image indoors at all without massive and even sometimes uncomfortably hot studio lighting.
You think it should easilly pick up stars?
No. You're either grossly ignorant or else you're joking.
(Same as all arguments on this silly "hoax" debate.)
@g8k8g yes a good debate so there seems to be a problem "testing" a non aerodynamic platform in earth air to give it a realism and hands on for the pilots.
i recall one crash of this amazing system. luckily the boost rocket in the chair got armstrong away from this marvel of science that you ahh ummm err are studying in EES college...Arnstrong almost died-- i think its on film-- very sad-- not a good news event day for NASA...dont go on any test rides sonny....
@BIGJAK87 the light from the sun blocked them. if you go to the far side of the moon, stars are visible. but on the side facing the sun, there are too many light sources(earth, sun) that stars can't be seen. on earth, can you see stars in a very bright place?
@BIGJAK87 Why do you think they chose to visit the moon when it was lit up by the sun? Because if it wasnt , it would be a very dark place, not to mention they would freeze to death. Can you see stars on a clear sunny day? If you can , you have a remarkable talent.
How about this, a little preparations by the PhD's to build a vertical pan on the lunar rover camera, then install a remote control to enable simple operations by radio signal from mission control on Earth, OH GOD ITS SO COMPLEX
These video's are a hoax, look in the backdrop there are no stars to be seen,& as the video suggest whom is panning the camera?Plus, where is the Rover attatched to this when it Lands? The light on them is very fosused deep shadows if it were sun light the shadows would not recede so quickly..Watch DakotaLapes of the milkyway, Look how much light it gives off..
@karlbuttler Stars - Unless you're on the shadow side of a celestial body you can't see stars. This is why we don't see stars during the day moon or earth.
Camera pan - Remote cam mounted on Lunar Rover controlled by Houston
Reference: /watch?v=vjHQMmL5ZYk
Rover - It was stored in the LM's Quadrant 1 bay
Reference: /watch?v=-ShauSWcTC4 )
Shadows - The shadows look exactly as they should!
@karlbuttler There are no stars because it is DAYTIME. Look at any photograph OF the moon, or another planet, or even the space station. No stars either. Stars are relatively dim in comparison.
The rover is attached to side of the lander and if you search for 'rover deployment' you can see how it was unpacked.
The camera was remotely controlled and you can find out more about it by googling for 'Cameras of Apollo'.
@krisdevalle Apollo photography in particular question is of LEM & Command Module allegedly orbiting Luna over its Dark Side, both independently T.V. videoing each other.
A T.V. camera does not expose film; it produces a SIGNAL that contains its images.
NEVER in *any* Apollo T.V. video or still photograph is a star, planet or Milky Way visible.
@centurion180ad -- For about $500, you yourself can send a camera up above 98% of the Earth's atmosphere, so close to space that the difference is nothing for the purpose of taking photographs. Many people have done it. Look up their pictures.
With camera exposure settings set to photograph the sunlit surface of Earth, there are NEVER any stars in their photos.
The "no stars" argument can easilly be independently researched. It's crap.
I was answering his comment to me about "1960's video equipment" and his previous comments about the star subject in general.
But unless he did his experiment (1) with 1960's equipment (2) with daylight exposure settings (3) above the atmosphere (or at least #2 and #3) his experiment is completely invalid.
@ytmoog -- I just needed to point out that it IS possible for ordinary people to get pictures of space from outside the Earth's atmosphere. It has been done many times. And there are NO stars in the photos (cameras are always set to photograph the sun-lit surface but they always capture images of outer space.)
Those kinds of images are the ONLY valid comparison.
@karlbuttler A good beginning for You is to type in ""Apollo 15 Rover deployment" in the "search-box" here on Youtube. Then, may I suggest You to check the Apollo program out a little before You proceed to accuse thousands of people of lying?
@YDDES you and others have been often told it would be the managers of a conspiracy who would really know the truth-- only a relatively few people would need to know the truth-- its called being in the GOLD room or the RED room at Goldstone Labs IN California or some of the other complexes all over the world NASA used back then. Stop the stupid assertion that a major conspiracy would be shared with jack sprack who tightened screws on hinges for the doors leading to the NASA cafeteria.
@DERRUFO360 It wasn't "a relatively few people" in NASA who designed, built and tested the rockets an spacecraft. It was thousands of experts working at North American, Grumman, Boeing, Douglas, Martin and several other companies in the aerospace business. It wasn't "a relatively few" who programmed the computers, launched the rockets and tracked the spaceships.
Even IF it had been "a relatively few", that built, launched and tracked the ships, that had of course not been any evidence of a hoax
@YDDES by the very definition of the word-- management -- involves very few people...a kept secret is best done by a very few people. we now are wondering at the ease of breathing by all the LEM crews during their time out of the vehicle... not the rover-- the LEM..you and others who poo poo the hoaxers cannot win the argument unless you trivialize the accusations or the questions of others-- bingo-you cant even read my earlier comment correctly
@DERRUFO360 Why would the oxygen supply be a problem for the lunar astronauts, when it never has been that for the Shuttle and ISS crews? During the building of the ISS and the servicing of the Hubble, they have stayed outside as least as long as the Apollo astronauts.
One can't compare the astronauts to divers. Divers have compressed air, with about 21% oxygen in their tanks. Astronauts in spacesuits have 100% oxygen in their tanks.
my comment about no advanced human spacecraft on the moon is not a reference to the Apollo LEMs that may or may not be on the moon- I am referring to the lack of a science program in space that would have exploited the tech achievements of Apollo LEM if it all had been true 4 decades ago-- dont flame me about the LRO images of small dots here and there on moon that is A-- a LEM Pad left there or B - a trail of walking tracks left by moonauts or C-- tracks from the Rover.
any pro NASA whizz guys- you real smart science guys-- fine-- have your fun-- laugh at those who wonder what the F is REALLY going on but for everyone else-- i suggest you be very careful of the govt and what they say is real or true...notice the pro NASA guys never give a flying F about the claims that NASA hides info about aliens // ufos.these guys know about the cover up from their buddies in science or they are tin- plated micro chip sensors- just not loaded into a cyberfrozen pig brain yet
Why, everybody knows they tied a fishing line from the ship to the camera, rolled the window down, and pulled it as they went up. Hoaxers are so funny!
i am not mentioning Apollo because.I just cannot accept that a space program went from problems in 1968 to a 100 per cent success rarte if we do not count A13 which was not in the LEM landing phase and re- launch to orbiter module sequence at any time after the Problem occurred.so i dont include it.thus glaringly the NASA people have a 100 per cent success rate for earth to moon missions with one type of technology and one type of craft on the first SIX attempts. I ll just stare at the wall
@DERRUFO360 Why would it be so hard to land on Moon? Mercury and Gemini had been successes, with some problems, but no major failures. Surveyors had landed automatically. The LM had been tested, manned and unmanned in Earth orbit and manned in lunar orbit.
Most advanced aircraft make successful first flights.
Why should it have been any major problems? Any intelligent reason?
@YDDES my comments speak my opinion and there were enough problems with some missions...there was the problem of one gemini capsule retrorocket side boosters continuing to gire which forced gemini (8) or 7 to do emergency
return to earth-- was armstrong one of the crew for that?> i dont recall...no i wont google it..i am tired of debating with genuises who are sure a nation that lost JFK in 63 in a huge conspiracy went to the moon with no monkey business after apollo one capsule fire.enough,
i am believing it is possible a camera was on the moon-- yes i can accept that happening... i mean ranger probes smacked into moon in 1965 ? surveyor was doing softlandiing-- impressive job by NASA for sure in 1966-1968,,,? i can accept some agency saying they have images from a camera that was placed safely on the moon and working and transmitting back to earth....i am not mentioning Apollo but not trying to be disrespectful to NASA,
thanks for the info- i did check it online--kris--well part of my comment I left at the -- other room-- the moonlanding hoax danielisnews video room comment area-- i ll give part of it here :
i just think i have to admit there are certain things I cant imagine or know for sure but I am well aware of the issues...these matters are not settled and i hope the investigations continue for a century..
is there even one image of the stars above the astronauts ? a direct attempt to image the stars ? was there an application section of the LEM to allow the moonauts to image the sky above the LEM - obviously using a different camera than the one set to deal with the light conditions outside the LEM ? if the ansewer is no i feel its an area of serious inquiry.
@DERRUFO360 Yes there was; they used a UV camera during Apollo 16 to image constellations.
You can see those pictures, taken from the lunar surface, here:
ww w3. telus. net/summa/faruv/index. htm
So that is your question answered perfectly. A different camera, able to deal with the light conditions outside the LEM. Any problems? I'm sure you'll find some fucked up reason not to believe this evidence.
@DERRUFO360 - "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit", as they say. I don't claim to be brilliant, that's more the attitude of many hoax believers who appear to think they've discovered something that few others know about. I simply respect the work of the thousands of brilliant scientists from numerous fields and in numerous countries (including those hostile to the USA and those with no connection to NASA) who for 4 decades have examined the evidence and confirmed the moon landings were real.
@MTMind for you to hail the work of many when there is no evidence for advanced human spacecraft on the moon 4 decades AFTER the so-called moon Missions makes me laugh..dont look in the mirror--just the actual fcking real news catching up with you-- NASA has no space mission craft to enter space as of right now-- put that in yer scientific funknwagnall bs boasts about glory of Apollo /NASA.I amnot yet convinced. Kubricks 2001 a space oddyssey movie seems as real, My rant is not at you mind2.
This has been flagged as spam show
any one can write data in here but we all know there are no files or original telemetry records of the moon missions. NASA says they were Lost somehow-- so pipercub can type whatever he/she wants...it doesnt change what we saw when a guy was asked to do a special show on tv about armstrong and the more the guy learned the less he assumed the moon missions were real...GLEN BECK show --DID WE REALLY GO TO THE MOON,when he was at CNN-- it was a big deal but not discussed much in these moon debates
DERRUFO360 3 hours ago
so let me get this straight then, the main defence you have to criticism about this footage, is "chimps throwing poo" wow, what a winning statement, you've converted me with it... MORONS, YOUR BUS IS LEAVING
AmsterdamnedMovie 3 hours ago
have you ever tried even steering a radio controled car with a 6 second delay? And how did we get that video back? NASA says there was 20 second delay and as I understand it there had to be someone there to send the video back. Maybe they picked it up on a later mission?
TheMagicfish33 4 hours ago
Comment removed
pipercub123456 3 hours ago
@TheMagicfish33
Simple answer to the first, they new exactly to the second the Ascent stage would launch and how fast it would accelerate.
So the commands were sent at certain points in the countdown.
It is also worth noting it was the third attempt to capture it, with the Apollo 15 and 16 launches not being captured as well.
Someone there to send it back? It was a TV camera, the signal was picked up by radio telescopes.
ytmoog 2 hours ago
@TheMagicfish33 It's only a 2.6 second delay. Look it up. Seriously. No lie.
krisdevalle 58 minutes ago
magic! *snort* *snort*
nor94 6 hours ago
About the question of thrust, the ascent vehicle required much less thrust than the Saturn launch vehicle did on Earth for a number of reasons.
1. The force of acceleration caused by gravity on the moon is only around 1.6 m/s^2, much less than Earth's 9.8 m/s^2.
2. The ascent vehicle is much much lighter than Saturn V, mainly because it only needs to boost 2 people into lunar orbit, which is much easier to obtain, rather than boost enough fuel to get to the moon into Earth orbit.
jnrobinson95 17 hours ago
@jnrobinson95
3. Because there is no atmosphere on the moon, you don't need to climb outside of it to orbit stably. Technically, the ascent vehicle could have orbited the moon at just above hilltop altitude if it so chose, but that would be silly, and unproductive.
4. Let's assume that the ascent module was accelerating at 2 m/s^2 (probably not accurate, but enough to overcome lunar gravity.) Since F=m*a, 4780 kg * 2 m/s^2 = 9.56 kN of thrust, which wouldn't produce much visible exhaust.
jnrobinson95 16 hours ago
Im not a beleiver in everything infact im probably 1 of the people thats called a conspiracy nut but the pitures of the lander taking off used the lunar rover to film the whole thing,as for the flag ive tested in a real lab vacume a flag with a rigid pole along the top edge like the 1 planted and infact it moves more than it does with an atmosphere,>simple rule of physics no atmosphere = less/no air resistance = moving flag, atmosphere = air resistence,=less movement,the flag would move.
TheSwiftBMF 22 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Question to all that believe it is a hoax.
Why is there no Brownian motion when the astronauts kicked up lunar dust? It all just falls back to the surface, like they are in a vacuum.
g8k8g9k9 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@g8k8g9k9 i explained this before - if you use just one material and it is moist it will react in 1 Earth Atmosphere pressure and 1 Earth G and it all fall to the ground as if there is the vacuum of space and no dust cloud...slowing the motion is simple enough-- slow the video speed playback transmit to the studio or NASA offices and record it as beinf L I V E from the moon-- THIS IS MISSION CONTROL.. wow i did it....i am excited being part of the SPACE PROGRAM/ i do not list you as spam btw
DERRUFO360 17 hours ago
Comment removed
g8k8g9k9 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360
So do you have the specification document for the lunar lander? I take it you do, because you say it is not capable to land on the Moon and take off again.
g8k8g9k9 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@g8k8g9k9 stop the interrogation of me
DERRUFO360 18 hours ago
@DERRUFO360
In regard to this; F22 prototype also crashed (As well as Su27, F14, Harrier/Kestrel, P39, etc.). So I guess they are hoaxes also.
I am a South African, so I don't know what you are talking about with ESS college; but I take it is an insult.
PS. I have worked on engineering projects before. I once had to write a tender document that is as thick as a telephone directory.
g8k8g9k9 1 day ago
Comment removed
DERRUFO360 18 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@g8k8g9k9 said : with ESS college; but I take it is an insult.
DERR says :- no kris is the one who gives us all insults krisdevalle
DERRUFO360 18 hours ago
@DERRUFO360
Yes. I know about the crash. I wanted to get a picture (But couldn't.), because you said they couldn't train for the Moon landing. Yes and what about the other simulators and the other preparatory missions?
PS. NASA also take the most experienced pilots for astronauts. To increase their chances for success, I guess.
That's why they kept on training and used highly experienced pilots in the first place.
Do you think that other pilots don't "crash" when they are on simulators?
g8k8g9k9 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@g8k8g9k9 sorry i am not here to carry out discussions of every idea that comes out of your head
DERRUFO360 18 hours ago
Clearly they have to reduce light going into cameras because of glare (Go outside when the sun is shining and look at sheet of white paper. Notice the fucking glare!). So stars will not apear on film.
Now google earth orbit, like I said before. You will find a hell of alot of pictures taken in outer space without stars in them.
I only insulted you because you insulted others.
g8k8g9k9 1 day ago
How did the technician track the Challenge ascent stage? He had paid close attention to the way the ascent stages on Apollo 15 and 16 flew, and was able to send directions to the Rover camera ahead of time so that by the time the signals reached the camera, the camera was tracking the ascent stage.
jmcenanly1 1 day ago
That camera was controlled from earth, by a very talented camera orperator who was working with around a 6 second delay between the camera controls at houston and the camera on the moon. It was a very tense time, if the guy was slightly off with the use of the camera controls, he would've missed the lander taking off!
gooseknack 1 day ago 8
kris i have to go do some stuff..but the point is-- til humans go into the van allen belt we dont know what the end result will be-- just because you and a few men from Apollo say they went to the moon and came back ok-- fine= but the absence of humans in space in a big way 40 yrs after apollo is a major reason to wonder what is going on...sorry-- gotta go -- read up on science learning about VAB since 1969 and also the danger to humans from the sun during prolonged periods of travel in space
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 ..I can see you're not your average truther. you do have a way with words,infact I'd bet the farm that you're a scientist and a very good one at that..however I don't agree with your math skills,, for you certainly can add TROUBLE::divide ATTENTION::and most of all multiply IGNORANCE. I have to leave now, but its been a treat reading your comments, as too your complete lack of familiarity with the Apollo missions,this we won't speak of again..no need for a reply....THX
pipercub123456 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 But humans do go in the Van Allen Belt.
The astronauts in the space station go through it every day.
I thought I told you this. Why am I telling you again?
They go through the South Atlantic Anomaly, every day, which is part of the VAB.
I am not lying. You can look it up.
Look it up and find out if I am lying. Please. Why would I?
krisdevalle 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@krisdevalle i specifically mentioned altitude kris to show that when you say the ISS goes thru the VAB every day the point is whats the altitude and at which parts of the VAB are most serious energized particle reactions ? etc kris no one goes into the VAB to do such research do they kris which is why you said in a diff message-- what would the astros do at 800 mile orbital circuit? duh.. the question is answered kris-- to locate the nature of and reactions of the energized particles & range
DERRUFO360 18 hours ago
@DERRUFO360 First. Please, give a scientifical reason why we should spend a lot of money going on flying people to the moon or up in high orbits. What's to gain?
Second. Armstrong didn't escape from a LM prototype or anything like that. It was a LLTV, a pilot training vehicle with a turbo jet, not rocket engine. The only resemblence to a LM was it's four legs. Not even designed and built by Grumman, which built the LM. Check the facts!
YDDES 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YDDES yes you are right-- it was a simulartor-- my mistake in using the words saying it was a LEM simulator--- yes it did not look like the LEM-- so what is the point here? to make me appear wrong or stupid about NASA-- ?? that is krisdevalle's job....
DERRUFO360 18 hours ago
Well that's easy to figure out. The moon aliens were running the camera.
gtrefghuk 1 day ago
kris tries to take an incident of a problem when the crew tried to "go deep" and since i mentioned it kris then demands I tell him if the crew were harmed as if the 460 mile orbit was the reason for these debates--as if the title of the videos online are all titled : should NASA ever go above 300 miles orbit of Earth ? haha-- kris you take issues or ideas from comments and try to make it seem to be the problem...the problem is the VAB.they located anti matter in there from some energy reactions
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 Soooo what happened to the astronauts?
Were they harmed?
You're as coy as a virgin about telling me. Very interesting. What are you hiding?
krisdevalle 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 Point is, Derr, you tried to use this example as some evidence that that Van Allen belts were lethal.
This is not particularly strong evidence, because nothing happened to the astronauts. They saw some flashes of light in their eyeballs. No-one died, no-one's eyeballs melted or exploded.
So next time, try to get some better evidence. Because what you presented was pathetic.
krisdevalle 1 day ago
hah nothing is out there in space eh kris ? haha
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 Hey, what happened to those astronauts who went to repair the Hubble?
What happened to them? Can you please tell me?
Did they die?
What happened?
Just tell me, please. Can you do that?
krisdevalle 1 day ago
come to think of it since the VAB is so safe I wonder more missions dont go farther out in space-- not needed to have a perfect circular orbit far out in space but almost circular or a diff kind-- the parabolic orbit.say 800 miles out from earth.. i wonder why that is NEVER DONE>>. er kris ?
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 What would they do there?
krisdevalle 1 day ago
haha kris man everytime i look at this video i am amazed how nice and smooth the background terrain is-- arent you umm amazed kris ? what with all the stuff flying around in space-- i dont see a sign of one fresh crater
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
hell kris everyone knows it was at the highest altitude of the shuttle when it was doing on a repair mission on hubble- (the telescope not bill clintons rich pal ) that the crew were annoyed by energized particles- was it 455 miles up? i cant recall...so no the ISS is at a much Lower and safer altitude .. the Hubble crew-- that was getting near the business in the belts.kris and annoying heteros you call fun...i call you a constant reminder that yer only half right here all the time....get it ?
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 annoyed huh?
what happened? Anyone die?
krisdevalle 1 day ago
so you see all-- its really hard for NASA to get there but a piece of cake to get around on the moon...look forward to your vacation there as we are now 43 years into the FUTURE and everything is easy to do if you have a battery and a computer program and some rocket fuel...go get em tigers....enjoy the MOON-- NASA's playground
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
hard to get there-- tough conditions on the surface but the NASA astronauts did their duty-- not only that- some live long into their 70s and 80s...no problem taking a BATH in the van allen Rad belt. nah no problem.but look at the happy jolly -crews-- working and making many scripted comments about what they are doing...some seen hopping along. some are seen skipping...there is no miked sounds of heavy breathnig..( no intense breathing on the recordings as the mic is right next to their mouths
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 Well it's 1/6th gravity, fuckballs. Why should there be any heavy breathing?
You're really trying ever so hard, aren't you?
Pretty cute.
You some other people who take a bath in the Van Allen Belt every day? The people on the ISS. Nobody's dead up there either! AMAZING.
Look it up you stupid dickhead. The South Atlantic Anomaly. Part of the VABs. And the ISS goes through it all the time.
Man... you're just too easy. But keep trying! This is fun.
krisdevalle 1 day ago
f u 2 kris
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
odd you couldnt answer it eh >?? haha
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
i dislike your approach to this kris-- i wont answer your questions.. i will pose questions the american people demand answers about from NASA and my comments are on this video and some other sites in youtube...in future the truth will be known- as i have said else where-- it might take another 100 years but the people of the USA are used to being ignored-- the JFK assassination was never fully resolved and that was --gee-- what do you know?-- that death also occurred inthe 60s like A ONE fire
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
i am just a hoaxtard-- i assume if panoramic shots with shadows are seen in images--well silly me assume we would see something like it in this amazing video...its is amazing because there is not one shadow seen any where oops wait there is one- directly under the LEM,,, does this mean the sun was directly overhead? I am not an expert-- is it possible for the sun to be at noon type position and thus no shadows are seen ? as on earth ? gee... i sure hope so or you pro NASA guys are busted
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 Pretty much answered your own question there. Good work.
Sun was high. There you go.
Next time you want to make some retarded statement like it doesn't look right, just remember, you have never been to the moon, so you don't even know what it should look like.
I don't give a flying fuck if you dislike my 'approach'. I question the logic, theories and general intelligence of those morons who make retarded claims like you. Because they always are lacking.
krisdevalle 1 day ago
kris-- a very good point by you-- finally
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 So answer the question.
krisdevalle 1 day ago
err kris i was also curious why the govt and NASA discussed the next manned mission would be to MARS ?? That got the moon hoaxers interest and then NASA started the Moon mission lectures to the news reporters saying that the moon missions would also occur....
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 Just answer one question.
If you don't think this looks like it was shot on the moon, then how do you know what it should look like on the moon?
krisdevalle 1 day ago
kris you are exposing yourself-- the insults-- the pained whiny protests---the terrain I am talkng about is every where in the background--no irregular shadows cast on the surface any where... you know it- i know it-- you lose buddy... you lose
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 I'm just saying, that your conditions continue to change as you desperately seek some kind of anomaly.
High resolution scans of panoramic shots can be found here:
moonpans. com/vr/
What kind of irregular shadows are you looking for, and why do you think they should appear?
Put simply, how do you know these pictures are not taken on the moon, and how do you know what it should look like on the moon?
Answer one question.
How do you know it doesn't look like that?
krisdevalle 1 day ago
kris of course you would continue to mention non manned probes to the moon rather than my own actual inquiries-- my questions are for all-- not just you...you use insults and condemnation to silence those who wonder-- must be in your job description to be a troll here... btw--i stated there are no manned missions to the moon since 1972 ( if Apollo was real ) and i wonder why ....of course you have explained why havent you kris ? you must make all the decisions of the USA govt for NASA... haha
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
kris and yddes have taken my concerns and added the word print paper to their days coffee filter and made some hot brew...i dont think its going to work this time fellas... you are stuck with the moon,no human presence on the surface of moon and you sit here and type why...to me and millions who want to know the truth...haha--kris can you add to yddes reply to me-- when i wondered why as the LEM sits there all the terrain seen has no irregular terrain ? no boulders no shadows. stone on stone ?
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 Where would you want to land, you stupid fucking turd?
In the middle of a boulder-strewn, crevasse-filled valley?
Or on a flat area?
Man, every time I think I figure out how stupid you are, you outdo yourself.
OH LETS GO LAND IN THAT SPOT WITH ALL THE BOULDERS, THAT LOOKS SAFE.
You're stupider than an amoeba. You are stupider than anyone I have ever met, ever.
krisdevalle 1 day ago
kris is explaining once again that man went to the moon with an operation that was successful 6 times and no fatalities or errors yet there are no men in orbit of the moon or on the surface and kris tells me to wise up ? haha kris we are concerned about whether or not there were moon missions or not-- we see no evidence of moon exploration by the 2 most advanced nations on earth since 1972....and you tell me - no worries ? haha
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 Actually the last Soviet lander and sample return mission was 1976.
This is why I think you are stupid, and ignorant.
You know NOTHING about history.
You do NOTHING to learn.
You simply think you know enough.
Go and fucking read about the history of lunar exploration. You disgust me, with how little you know.
Aren't you in the least bit interested in actually educating yourself?
If only you just did a little more research.. I might have some respect for you.
krisdevalle 1 day ago
based on the current discussion if it so easy to do earth moon orbitals where are the for profit MOON RIDES ?? 40 years after Apollo one capsule fire /?? show me the money--....you guys who are pro Landing will poo poo this observation and say-- oh no its just too expensive derr-- thats why no companies try it..haha....yddes and kris explain to me as if to a child that there were so many test flights of Apollo LEM- for all we know it was primarily for MANNED SKYLAB..first in space habitats.
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 I'm sorry, you seem to be unable to understand the basics here.
No-one has said it was easy to get to the moon.
There is one company offering civilian ticketed rides to the moon.
A single ticket will $200 million.
Is this clear now?
krisdevalle 1 day ago
uh oh you left someone on the moon..
IJNAkagi 1 day ago
YDDES, If they did change the whole magazine they still couldn't do it wearing gloves like that, and where did they put the old magazines, also one picture every thirty seconds, not much time for anything else was there? oh and the oxygen supply is via tube for the astronauts at ISS.
thecubanism 2 days ago
@thecubanism As I said, and as You can see, for example on "Apollo 12 image library", MANY of the "thousands of photos" were taken in space and not on the lunar surface. Also, there You can see that they took a bunch of photos from one spot then moved on to set up equipment or collect samples, sometimes stopping to take a bunch of photos again. I suggest You check out some source describing how the film in the hasselblad was changed.
YDDES 2 days ago
@thecubanism @thecubanism As I said, and as You can see, for example on "Apollo 12 image library", MANY of the "thousands of photos" were taken in space and not on the lunar surface. Also, there You can see that they took a bunch of photos from one spot then moved on to set up equipment or collect samples, sometimes stopping to take a bunch of photos again. I suggest You check out some source describing how the film in the hasselblad was changed.
YDDES 2 days ago
@thecubanism Also, check some information and pictures of astronauts working outside the Shuttle and ISS, because You seem to suffer from some kind of delusion. They do NOT have any "oxygen supply via tube" (where are those "tubes" connected?). They have backpacks like the Apollo astronauts.
This seems to be the typical "I don't understand it, so it can't be true..." as so many hoax-believers seem to suffer from. Better to check available facts than to just make up your own assumptions
YDDES 2 days ago
@thecubanism Dude. So inaccurate.
Here's a diagram of the Hassleblads. Note in particular the large magazine size, and the swing tab that even someone with a flipper for a hand could use.
ww w. myspacemuseum. com/70mmb. jpg
Now, what if they too 15 pictures in one minute? Then they would have the next seven and a half minutes to do other stuff. Or 30 pictures in the first two minutes, then 15 minutes to do other stuff.
Have some thought, seriously, about what you are saying.
krisdevalle 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NASA gangsters will begin editing in stars to their hoax photographs and TV video, and design a new CIA legend, a fairy tale, that for some reason in the 60s & 70s NASA *had to* for some obscure reason, edit OUT the stars for public consumption.
centurion180ad 2 days ago
do we have the tech in 1969 to make a more realistic moon studio setting ? some one said there is not even one background irregular terrain shadow seen-this is really amazing-- this is real ? haha
DERRUFO360 2 days ago
@DERRUFO360 Don't understand what You mean by "not even one background irregular terrain shadow seen".
We didn't have the technology to fake the Apollo lunar surface films before the CGI was invented decades later, when the computers got enough power.
YDDES 2 days ago
the camera was rigged with the ability to follow the eagle, the astronauts have said this time and time again, look it up. think we don't have the technology to have a camera auto focus, auto move? we did and do. case closed.
hoaxhunter 2 days ago
also about flights to the moon - there was no way to rescue Landed crew if there was a problem...seems a bit much to go to the moon in such a desperate way since this amazing technology could be used to send 2 ships -- 2 A C M -- apollo Lem module and return rocket motor plus fuel combos to the moon; This way you have a back up rescue plan. But it never occurred--if you can run a vessel like A 13 with the battery power of a clock radio and the guys dont die you can pretty much do anything. : )
DERRUFO360 2 days ago
@DERRUFO360 You can tell from tone & inflection in astronauts’ voices, their choice of words, and their diarrhea-of-the-mouth verbosity, that they didn’t go.
No 3 people from this earth simultaneously aware of a razor’s edge that their lives would be hanging on, would retain such cavalier flamboyancy.
Extreme FEAR.
Astronauts walking on lunar surface would NEVER be more than a heartbeat away from each other. They would NEVER for any period of time allow the other to be out of sight.
centurion180ad 2 days ago
@centurion180ad Well, these men were professional military test pilots, testing the newest and fastest aircraft for the first time, used to risk their lives on an everyday basis. Voluntarily. They weren't as easily frightened as You.
Cowards wouldn't have applied for that job.
Being a fighter pilot in war is at least as dangerous. Yet, many men work very hard to get that job. But, as I said, not all are so easily scared as You, as it seems...
YDDES 2 days ago
@YDDES You have not flown in combat where death is immediate in proximity.
You are not qualified to have an opinion on this matter.
I know those queer school boys didn't walk on the moon. They are overpaid CRIMINAL actors playing make believe. That explains their teenage chatter, at 1 point the 2 jackasses are SINGING.
SOME of those crooks had military experience means that had they ACTUALLY been on Luna, they’d know damn well how proximately dangerous of a situation they were in.
centurion180ad 1 day ago
@centurion180ad I'm quite qualified to have an opinion on if it's dangerous to fly combat missions in war. Do You know how many pilots and other crew members have died in war? Are You qualified? Have You ever piloted an aircraft? I have.
What do you know about the astronauts? Neil Armstrong, for example, was a well known pilot long before he joined Apollo. He fought in Korea and was one of the pilots who flew the X-15 and several other experimental aircraft. Why would he be scared, like You?
YDDES 1 day ago
@YDDES YDDES, you are a liar and an extreme jackass.
Bye, bye.
centurion180ad 11 hours ago
@centurion180ad Well, before running away, hiding, You can at least tell me what I've lied about?
YDDES 11 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@centurion i once again agree with centurion --a lack of caution or fear-- what we call-- casting aside all caution to the wind is what we see in some of the NASA films as the project managers must have decided : Lets give the taxpayers a entertaining show-- because its getting boring going to the moon perfectly 6 times--the main point as usual is: astro falls down and doesnt fear his suit will puncture and he will die..because there are no melted sand glass shards in moondust-its a studio=yes.
DERRUFO360 18 hours ago
@DERRUFO360 There were no way to rescue the Mercury, Gemini and Shuttle crews either, if the return rockets had failed. Yet they flew A LOT of missions. NASA, and the astronauts were willing to take risks at every manned rocket launch. Just as the Soviets did, and still do. There were some "plans" to have rescue missions ready for Apollo, but it was deemed unnecessary and too expensive.
What "battery power of a clock radio"? Apollo 13 used the LM's power after the explosion.
YDDES 2 days ago
yddes training prevents crashing-- there were no training flights to the moon -- only moon missions which involved long duration lunar surface visits...and then engine re-start and success-- each time-- amazing-- maybe too amazing
DERRUFO360 2 days ago
@DERRUFO360 You fucking moron - look up Apollo 10. It tested the engine, it just didn't land.
Look, I know it must be fun to say stupid shit all the time and never check it, but the progression from Apollo 1 to Apollo 11 tells a story of tests, rehearsals, and basically a step by step procedure that led to the moon landing.
Ignorant fucks like you could learn a lot if you just read about the preceding Apollo missions. Why don't you? Just try it.. for once.
krisdevalle 2 days ago 5
@kris ok kris -- since it was so easy to orbital and return to earth why is there no space stations around the moon with men in them ? i am so curious-- please tell me kris that the same govt that gives billions of dollars YEARLY to islamic nations that hate our guts would not make attempts to conquer space but made heroiic efforts--3 men at a time in a small capsule and LEM to win the so-called MOON RACE- its been 40 years since Apollo1 fire -- we arent as stupid as you make us out to be....
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 Who said it was easy?
There is a space station around the moon - it just doesn't have men in it.
It's called the LRO and you do not need to resupply it, send more food or water or air, it doesn't get homesick, or ill, and it almost completely impervious to solar flares.
What would men in a lunar space station do that a robot space station couldn't?
Smarten up please. You do this all the time. Never really think about the solution.
krisdevalle 1 day ago
@DERRUFO360 How would "training flights to Moon" be executed according to You? Apollo 8 orbited Moon. Apollo 10's LM made a descent and restart without actually landing. The astronauts trained for hundreds of hours in simulators.
What more would they have done before landing?
Why not "engine re-start and success-- each time"? The engines had been extensively tested. The fuels were hypergolic. No ignition system needed, the fuel ignited when the two components blended.
YDDES 2 days ago 6
@YDDES see my reply to kris
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
yddes explains the invention of breathing devices very well except we do not know if they were ever demonstrated any where but on the moonwalks...1969 is different from the shuttle system that came about 12 years later
DERRUFO360 2 days ago
@DERRUFO360 You can always invent Your own reasons why the lunar landings "must" have been faked. Man had travelled in space for 8 years when they landed on Moon. Of course the scientists and technicians knew how to supply spacesuits with enough oxygen. Any reason they would not? During Apollo 9, in Earth orbit, the spacesuits were tested outside the spaceship.
Maybe it's "amazing" to You that they didn't crash on Moon, but not to someone who knows and understands the technology involved.
YDDES 2 days ago
cubanism that is a good point on the breathing time the moonauts supposedly had...very interesting,, i wonder if those devices were ever allowed to be seen by the public or was it secret inventions of the defense dept ? : )
DERRUFO360 3 days ago
And as for the Gene Cerman interview, well, no-one in their right mind could believe this faker is telling the truth, come on, you have to agree with me on that one.
thecubanism 3 days ago
WayneHarrison, so a photo was taken every 30 seconds, not from what I have seen, they would have had no time for anything else,and they changed the film in a pair of sausage-fingered gloves, adjusted the settings, and took perfect images all without a viewfinder, oh yes, and while we are at it a diver has about an hour's oxygen in his tanks, these jokers had 4 hours, explain that one please.
thecubanism 3 days ago
@thecubanism If You go to a site where ALL the lunar photos are published, You'll find that A LOT of them are very bad. Wrongly exposed, tilted and out of focus. But, of course no newspaper, magazine or book have had any interest in publishing those photos. And, they didn't change film rolls, they changed the whole magazines.
There are descriptions about the spacesuits. Check them. And, while doing that, contemplate how the astronauts at ISS can stay outside for hours...
YDDES 3 days ago
Just Googled. Earth orbit photos. Could not get one pic with stars in them either.
USSR sent a satelite to the moon during the Apollo 11 mission. It flew over the Eagle landing site and crashed on the moon.
Now if the moon landings were fake, why would USSR not tell it to the world. It would have been a propaganda coup for them. Or was the Soviet Union also not real?
g8k8g9k9 3 days ago
@g8k8g just for fun tell us how NASA achieved100 per cent success rate at landing booster rocket strapped washing machines on the moon with a 1/6 th earth gravity? the astronauts had no real way to train-- since NASA never went the normal route-- space station around moon and then train men how to land the LEMs using the moon-- duh.how did nasa put 6 missions perfectly on the moon ? no crashes ?no rocket engine or booster throttle//switch trouble ? how ? not counting A13 a 100 % success rate ?
DERRUFO360 3 days ago
@DERRUFO360 Why would they crash on Moon? How many advanced aircraft of new types crash at their first (or even tenth) flight? They were the top of the top of test pilots. They trained extensively in simulators and the LLTV vehicles. They also tested the real LM, manned and unmanned in Earth orbit and manned in lunar orbit (Apollo 10). The Shuttle, much more complicated than the LM, failed 2 times during more than 130 flights. Why would the LM fail during only 6 landings?
YDDES 3 days ago
@DERRUFO360 NASA gangsters will begin editing in stars to their hoax photographs or TV video and design a new CIA legend, a fairy tale, that for some reason in the 60s & 70s NASA *had to* for some obscure reason, edit OUT the stars for public consumption.
At the time corporation United States was FEEDING the Soviet Union. If syndicate United States told them to shut up or no food, the Soviets would have shut up.
centurion180ad 2 days ago
@centurion180ad OK, don't forget to tell me when " NASA gangsters will begin editing in stars to their hoax photographs or TV video" in Your fantasy world.
In the meantime, I suggest that You study some optics, camera technology and astronomy. Then even You may be able to understand, even if just a little, why no stars are seen on the lunar surface photos.
YDDES 2 days ago
@YDDES You are a *daft* jackass.
Apollo photography in particular question is of LEM & Command Module allegedly orbiting Luna over its Dark Side, both independently T.V. videoing each other.
A T.V. camera does not expose film; it produces a SIGNAL that contains its images. NEVER in *any* Apollo T.V. video or still photograph is a star, planet or Milky Way visible.
This is impossible.
A cheap ass hand video, will photograph stars at night.
centurion180ad 1 day ago
@centurion180ad YEA....GAD DAMIT ... I FEEL THE SAME WAY screw all the bullshit...]
``` about the moons reflective bla bla ...
Any reflex can take a 2 second picture of earth or the stars ...
``` wtf .50 billion dollars & no picture of earth W/STARS ? NASA CAN SUCMYKOK ~
``` & I hold An A&P and 9 other fed and state lic... so if U dont agree KISSmyASS
HoodwinkedbyanAngel 1 day ago
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel Honestly, can You take a picture of the stars with the same settings on the camera (aperture and exposing time) as when You photograph a sunlit landscape? Can You???
YDDES 1 day ago
@YDDES No! You can't!!
gooseknack 1 day ago
@YDDES IDIOT ... THE EARTH HAS 100 MILES OF ATMOSPHEARE THAT
``` REFRACs THE LIGHT AND STOPS US FROM SEENINT THE STARS
```
the MOON has nothing refracting the light back at it ~...So explain what stops you from seeing the stars if there is nothing
```
You fuccing moron...no clouds no vapor no oxygen...no nothing ...Genius explain what stop a view of them.... we are waiting ?
HoodwinkedbyanAngel 1 day ago
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel That didn't answer my question. Can You photograph the stars at night with THE SAME SETTINGS on the camera as You use to photograph a brightly sunlit landscape? Because, that was what the astronauts were doing: Photographing a brightly sunlit landscape. Has nothing to do with the atmosphere, only with setting of the exposure time and aperture. No way the stars could be seen on the photos of the (properly) exposed lunar landscape. Who's the "idiot" here?
YDDES 1 day ago
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel
Hey dipshit. Look on this page on the right. One of the links is "The most important picture ever taken." If you watch it you will see, amongst other things, photos of the Hublbe telescope with no stars!
g8k8g9k9 1 day ago 4
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel If the atmosphere stops us from seeing stars, then where does it go at night?
krisdevalle 23 hours ago
@krisdevalle at night the bright sunlight is not hitting the atmosphere. During the day when it is, the air slightly refracts the light in all directions, and through the very deep atmosphere, the light is refracted very significantly to produce the blue color you see. KTHX
fir3cap3s 22 hours ago
@fir3cap3s Then how come we can see the moon during the day.
krisdevalle 22 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel ydddes looks like hoodwink is right this time, and also even if there is a large amount of sun reflection going back off the moon surface there are the areas of the moon that NASA "LANDED" in that are darker areas and thus less sunrays bouncing back to space-- so still no stars seen >? NASA planners = another mistake-= with your scripted studio productions.. you cant expect us to believe the stars would not be seen if the lunar surface the moonauts are on is dark material.
DERRUFO360 18 hours ago
@HoodwinkedbyanAngel
"Any reflex can take a 2 second picture of earth or the stars ."
A 2 second exposure of the sunlit earth would be hugely over exposed.
Here is a demonstration of the sunlit moon and stars:
watch?v=WmPFv7S7My4
They were there to explore the moon not the stars, you can see the stars from earth perfectly well :)
But there are Ultra-violet images of the earth and the stars...
See: watch?v=-wdiQ8IvO68
ytmoog 1 day ago
@centurion180ad Where do You have that video filmed over the moons night side (totally black surface)?
Actually, most of the films showing the other spacecraft was filmed with a 16 mm filmcamera. That's the cause of the seemingly fast speed.
YDDES 1 day ago
@centurion180ad -- Yes. A T.V. camera does not expose film.
So what?
Are you trying to say that a 1960's video camera should pick up stars more easilly than a film camera would?
You're joking, right?
prosperomage 20 hours ago
@prosperomage Multiple video captures of our moon, planets & stars are *easily* accomplished with a *used* Samsung C3O3 cellular telephone handunit, purchased second hand for 2,500 Philippine Pesos.
A 1960s commercial television camera with a huge thick lens aperture and an industrial grade focus target would have NO PROBLEM, capturing stars even in the presence of glare.
centurion180ad 11 hours ago
@centurion180ad -- You're really not at all familar with 1960's video technology, are you?
How old are you?
You make assumptions and write about technology as if you're quite young. 1960's video equipment had trouble resolving a good image indoors at all without massive and even sometimes uncomfortably hot studio lighting.
You think it should easilly pick up stars?
No. You're either grossly ignorant or else you're joking.
(Same as all arguments on this silly "hoax" debate.)
prosperomage 7 hours ago
@DERRUFO360
Eh, what?
Google: Lunar Module Simulator.
How do you think they train airliner, fighter, etc. pilots?
PS the Eagle wasn't a "landing booster rocket strapped washing machines....".
Some of the greatest engineers of that time were involved on the project.
I am studying electrical engineering and we just don't strap s@#$t together.
g8k8g9k9 2 days ago
@g8k8g yes a good debate so there seems to be a problem "testing" a non aerodynamic platform in earth air to give it a realism and hands on for the pilots.
i recall one crash of this amazing system. luckily the boost rocket in the chair got armstrong away from this marvel of science that you ahh ummm err are studying in EES college...Arnstrong almost died-- i think its on film-- very sad-- not a good news event day for NASA...dont go on any test rides sonny....
DERRUFO360 1 day ago
Comment removed
g8k8g9k9 1 day ago
I love Moon conspiracy believers. Come get some Catspit~! ☠
CatspitProductions 3 days ago
WHERE ARE THE STARS I CANT SEE 1 . OH I FORGOT THE MOON CLOUDY ATMOSPHERE WAS BLOCKING THEM ALL .
BIGJAK87 3 days ago
@BIGJAK87 the light from the sun blocked them. if you go to the far side of the moon, stars are visible. but on the side facing the sun, there are too many light sources(earth, sun) that stars can't be seen. on earth, can you see stars in a very bright place?
omaigad11 3 days ago
@BIGJAK87 Why do you think they chose to visit the moon when it was lit up by the sun? Because if it wasnt , it would be a very dark place, not to mention they would freeze to death. Can you see stars on a clear sunny day? If you can , you have a remarkable talent.
matt876mma 3 days ago
How about this, a little preparations by the PhD's to build a vertical pan on the lunar rover camera, then install a remote control to enable simple operations by radio signal from mission control on Earth, OH GOD ITS SO COMPLEX
sonnychiba77 3 days ago
@sonnychiba77 how about this, it's going to be so easy with the delay bbbahahoahohaohoahaoa
blindedby2monkeys 2 days ago
Comment removed
sonnychiba77 3 days ago
was it remote controlled maybe?
coolstorybro255 3 days ago
ask Stanley Kubrick....
user17v 3 days ago
These video's are a hoax, look in the backdrop there are no stars to be seen,& as the video suggest whom is panning the camera?Plus, where is the Rover attatched to this when it Lands? The light on them is very fosused deep shadows if it were sun light the shadows would not recede so quickly..Watch DakotaLapes of the milkyway, Look how much light it gives off..
karlbuttler 3 days ago
Comment removed
3KS26 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karlbuttler Stars - Unless you're on the shadow side of a celestial body you can't see stars. This is why we don't see stars during the day moon or earth.
Camera pan - Remote cam mounted on Lunar Rover controlled by Houston
Reference: /watch?v=vjHQMmL5ZYk
Rover - It was stored in the LM's Quadrant 1 bay
Reference: /watch?v=-ShauSWcTC4 )
Shadows - The shadows look exactly as they should!
3KS26 3 days ago
@karlbuttler There are no stars because it is DAYTIME. Look at any photograph OF the moon, or another planet, or even the space station. No stars either. Stars are relatively dim in comparison.
The rover is attached to side of the lander and if you search for 'rover deployment' you can see how it was unpacked.
The camera was remotely controlled and you can find out more about it by googling for 'Cameras of Apollo'.
krisdevalle 3 days ago
@krisdevalle Apollo photography in particular question is of LEM & Command Module allegedly orbiting Luna over its Dark Side, both independently T.V. videoing each other.
A T.V. camera does not expose film; it produces a SIGNAL that contains its images.
NEVER in *any* Apollo T.V. video or still photograph is a star, planet or Milky Way visible.
This is impossible.
centurion180ad 11 hours ago
@centurion180ad
As has been pointed out to you:
Venus (a planet) is visible in many Apollo images.
As are stars, see the Apollo 16 UV observatory images and the solar corona images for those.
"This is impossible"
Actually it is impossible for images or tv correctly exposed for daytime light levels to show stars.
And your images of Venus and Jupiter taken at night do not change that :)
"NEVER"
Do stop lying.
ytmoog 8 hours ago
@centurion180ad -- For about $500, you yourself can send a camera up above 98% of the Earth's atmosphere, so close to space that the difference is nothing for the purpose of taking photographs. Many people have done it. Look up their pictures.
With camera exposure settings set to photograph the sunlit surface of Earth, there are NEVER any stars in their photos.
The "no stars" argument can easilly be independently researched. It's crap.
prosperomage 7 hours ago
@prosperomage
I take it you missed his "proof" then..
Apparently as he was able to photograph Venus and Jupiter during the current alignment, that is proof stars should be visible.....
ytmoog 7 hours ago
@ytmoog -- I'll let you take care of his "proof."
I was answering his comment to me about "1960's video equipment" and his previous comments about the star subject in general.
But unless he did his experiment (1) with 1960's equipment (2) with daylight exposure settings (3) above the atmosphere (or at least #2 and #3) his experiment is completely invalid.
prosperomage 7 hours ago
@ytmoog -- I just needed to point out that it IS possible for ordinary people to get pictures of space from outside the Earth's atmosphere. It has been done many times. And there are NO stars in the photos (cameras are always set to photograph the sun-lit surface but they always capture images of outer space.)
Those kinds of images are the ONLY valid comparison.
prosperomage 7 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@karlbuttler
Here is a youtube video showing Houston panning the camera
/watch?v=vjHQMmL5ZYk
Here is a youtube video showing the Rover's deployment from the LM's Quadrant 1 bay
/watch?v=-ShauSWcTC4
3KS26 3 days ago
@karlbuttler A good beginning for You is to type in ""Apollo 15 Rover deployment" in the "search-box" here on Youtube. Then, may I suggest You to check the Apollo program out a little before You proceed to accuse thousands of people of lying?
YDDES 3 days ago
@YDDES you and others have been often told it would be the managers of a conspiracy who would really know the truth-- only a relatively few people would need to know the truth-- its called being in the GOLD room or the RED room at Goldstone Labs IN California or some of the other complexes all over the world NASA used back then. Stop the stupid assertion that a major conspiracy would be shared with jack sprack who tightened screws on hinges for the doors leading to the NASA cafeteria.
DERRUFO360 3 days ago
@DERRUFO360 It wasn't "a relatively few people" in NASA who designed, built and tested the rockets an spacecraft. It was thousands of experts working at North American, Grumman, Boeing, Douglas, Martin and several other companies in the aerospace business. It wasn't "a relatively few" who programmed the computers, launched the rockets and tracked the spaceships.
Even IF it had been "a relatively few", that built, launched and tracked the ships, that had of course not been any evidence of a hoax
YDDES 3 days ago
@YDDES by the very definition of the word-- management -- involves very few people...a kept secret is best done by a very few people. we now are wondering at the ease of breathing by all the LEM crews during their time out of the vehicle... not the rover-- the LEM..you and others who poo poo the hoaxers cannot win the argument unless you trivialize the accusations or the questions of others-- bingo-you cant even read my earlier comment correctly
DERRUFO360 3 days ago
@DERRUFO360 Why would the oxygen supply be a problem for the lunar astronauts, when it never has been that for the Shuttle and ISS crews? During the building of the ISS and the servicing of the Hubble, they have stayed outside as least as long as the Apollo astronauts.
One can't compare the astronauts to divers. Divers have compressed air, with about 21% oxygen in their tanks. Astronauts in spacesuits have 100% oxygen in their tanks.
Just one more uninformed "hoax" fairytale.
YDDES 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
my comment about no advanced human spacecraft on the moon is not a reference to the Apollo LEMs that may or may not be on the moon- I am referring to the lack of a science program in space that would have exploited the tech achievements of Apollo LEM if it all had been true 4 decades ago-- dont flame me about the LRO images of small dots here and there on moon that is A-- a LEM Pad left there or B - a trail of walking tracks left by moonauts or C-- tracks from the Rover.
where is the future?
DERRUFO360 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
any pro NASA whizz guys- you real smart science guys-- fine-- have your fun-- laugh at those who wonder what the F is REALLY going on but for everyone else-- i suggest you be very careful of the govt and what they say is real or true...notice the pro NASA guys never give a flying F about the claims that NASA hides info about aliens // ufos.these guys know about the cover up from their buddies in science or they are tin- plated micro chip sensors- just not loaded into a cyberfrozen pig brain yet
DERRUFO360 4 days ago
Why, everybody knows they tied a fishing line from the ship to the camera, rolled the window down, and pulled it as they went up. Hoaxers are so funny!
fortknoxguy 4 days ago
i am not mentioning Apollo because.I just cannot accept that a space program went from problems in 1968 to a 100 per cent success rarte if we do not count A13 which was not in the LEM landing phase and re- launch to orbiter module sequence at any time after the Problem occurred.so i dont include it.thus glaringly the NASA people have a 100 per cent success rate for earth to moon missions with one type of technology and one type of craft on the first SIX attempts. I ll just stare at the wall
DERRUFO360 4 days ago
@DERRUFO360 What problems did they have in 1968?
If you are referring to Apollo 1, it took nearly two years (Feb 1967- Apollo 1, Oct 1968 Apollo 7) to get back on track.
How long would have been plausible for you? If it took three years, would you be satisfied?
This is ridiculous. You think they got back on track too quickly. Haven't you ever learned from your mistakes to do it better the next time?
Don't make ignorant excuses. You're clutching at straws.
krisdevalle 4 days ago
@DERRUFO360 Why would it be so hard to land on Moon? Mercury and Gemini had been successes, with some problems, but no major failures. Surveyors had landed automatically. The LM had been tested, manned and unmanned in Earth orbit and manned in lunar orbit.
Most advanced aircraft make successful first flights.
Why should it have been any major problems? Any intelligent reason?
YDDES 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YDDES my comments speak my opinion and there were enough problems with some missions...there was the problem of one gemini capsule retrorocket side boosters continuing to gire which forced gemini (8) or 7 to do emergency
return to earth-- was armstrong one of the crew for that?> i dont recall...no i wont google it..i am tired of debating with genuises who are sure a nation that lost JFK in 63 in a huge conspiracy went to the moon with no monkey business after apollo one capsule fire.enough,
DERRUFO360 3 days ago
Comment removed
3KS26 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DERRUFO360
1. You claim the moon landing is a hoax due to unexplainable events A,B and C.
2. The forum explains events A,B and C but you automatically move on to D,E and F.
3. Why ignore/avoid the truthful explanations to A,B and C? Why does truth offend you?
4. Why even ask questions D,E and F if you're going to ignore the answers given?
5. Why post questions if you don't want to hear the answers or learn?
6. Why not spend a few minutes doing research and answer the questions yourself?
3KS26 4 days ago 2
i am believing it is possible a camera was on the moon-- yes i can accept that happening... i mean ranger probes smacked into moon in 1965 ? surveyor was doing softlandiing-- impressive job by NASA for sure in 1966-1968,,,? i can accept some agency saying they have images from a camera that was placed safely on the moon and working and transmitting back to earth....i am not mentioning Apollo but not trying to be disrespectful to NASA,
DERRUFO360 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
thanks for the info- i did check it online--kris--well part of my comment I left at the -- other room-- the moonlanding hoax danielisnews video room comment area-- i ll give part of it here :
i just think i have to admit there are certain things I cant imagine or know for sure but I am well aware of the issues...these matters are not settled and i hope the investigations continue for a century..
DERRUFO360 4 days ago
No no no . >They all draw a straw 2 see who would be left behind 2 film the takeoff
Buzrazer 4 days ago
Comment removed
3KS26 4 days ago
is there even one image of the stars above the astronauts ? a direct attempt to image the stars ? was there an application section of the LEM to allow the moonauts to image the sky above the LEM - obviously using a different camera than the one set to deal with the light conditions outside the LEM ? if the ansewer is no i feel its an area of serious inquiry.
DERRUFO360 5 days ago
Comment removed
3KS26 4 days ago
@DERRUFO360 Yes there was; they used a UV camera during Apollo 16 to image constellations.
You can see those pictures, taken from the lunar surface, here:
ww w3. telus. net/summa/faruv/index. htm
So that is your question answered perfectly. A different camera, able to deal with the light conditions outside the LEM. Any problems? I'm sure you'll find some fucked up reason not to believe this evidence.
krisdevalle 4 days ago
yes thats me-- the old regurgitator and you the brilliant mind-- man we are so sorry to burden you with our online presence.
DERRUFO360 5 days ago
@DERRUFO360 - "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit", as they say. I don't claim to be brilliant, that's more the attitude of many hoax believers who appear to think they've discovered something that few others know about. I simply respect the work of the thousands of brilliant scientists from numerous fields and in numerous countries (including those hostile to the USA and those with no connection to NASA) who for 4 decades have examined the evidence and confirmed the moon landings were real.
MTMind2 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MTMind for you to hail the work of many when there is no evidence for advanced human spacecraft on the moon 4 decades AFTER the so-called moon Missions makes me laugh..dont look in the mirror--just the actual fcking real news catching up with you-- NASA has no space mission craft to enter space as of right now-- put that in yer scientific funknwagnall bs boasts about glory of Apollo /NASA.I amnot yet convinced. Kubricks 2001 a space oddyssey movie seems as real, My rant is not at you mind2.
DERRUFO360 4 days ago