id like to ask a few questions please, seeing as there is a qualified physicist here.....firstly how did they shield against the van allen belt?, secondly how come there is no crater beneath the landing craft (apollo 11) even though thrusters were used to touch down, thirdly who was it that took that awesome sweeping footage of the return pod ejecting from the lander base?
@whackitov Difficult with limited characters, but for the Van Allen belts: 1) The spacecraft moved through the belts in four hours, and they were protected from the IONIZING radiation by the aluminium hull. The orbital transfer trajectory through the belts was plotted to give as little exposure as possible. Dr James Van Allen who discovered the belts rebutted claims that the radiation levels were too dangerous - this should speak volumes!
@whackitov 2) There shouldn't be a crater. The descent system was throttled down by a massive amount during the final seconds, basically enough to support the landers own weight. The pressure put out by the engine nozzle (bearing in mind that it expands much quicker in a vacuum than on earth) was hitting the Moon at 1.5psi. Not a lot at all, thus no crater. What it do do we scatter a lot of fine surface dust, and certain photos show scouring, google as11psr.pdf and go to page 95 onwards
@whackitov 3) It was a camera on the Lunar Rover that could be remotely controlled from Earth. It was panned up back from Mission control. Hope this answers your questions :)
@DeadJesus100 You are a sad, deluded fool. Jarrah has been debunked time after time. The fact that he doesn't even know that Apollo 13 got back to earth on a free return trajectory that needed nothing more than minor course corrections and its own momentum tells us all we need to know about his level of knowledge.
I know, it's incredible. Jarrah is studying astrophysics and he did not understand that Apollo 13 returned on a free return trajectory. I'm afraid little Jarrah put too much faith in Ralph Rene, a man that showed he did not understand orbital mechanics.
This has to be the greatest pwnage of Jarrah on YouTube... and that's saying something, since he's had his ass handed to him that many times, his legs are in danger of falling off.
This is an interesting point: the trip around the "back-side" of the moon, required no propulsion from the engine, thus granting them the fuel savings they needed to make the later course correction on the return leg of the mission. I don't know who this Jarrah guy is, but I will say that, based on the fact that this video is a response to his claims, he is definitely omitting much, in favor of his claims. And, just as LandingAppollo says here: just a little research explains everything.
I'd like to see moon landing debunkers debunk the publically-published mathematics NASA has offered to show that space flight to the moon is quite possible.
Thank You for putting this up. There are so many idiots out there that don't take the time to learn some of the simplest laws of physics. Although they give us a good laugh, it's quite disrespectful (especially in 13's case) of the bravery, ingenuity, and guts the crew displayed.
I am glad that Jarrahs is not in the space agency because he would actually be foolish to put the Apollo craft in lunar orbit killing of any astronauts. There is a space simulator Orbiter 2006 and anyone should discover themselves that no burn was needed to get Apollo back except for minor course corrections to get the incoming angle in Earths atmosphere within tolerance.
So how many videos did Jarrah make, trying to talk his way around this? How much "I-wrote, you-wrote, he-said, she-said" bullshit did he generate? This is a simple slam-dunk of one of his many bogus claims, but Jarrah feels he can talk his way out of anything. Well, after all, since he believes he is smarter AND more honest than all the experts in the world for the last 40 years, it should be easy for him to simply make facts go away. Or so he thinks.
There are around 65 hours of video and thousands of still photographs associated with the 6 Moon Landings. There are continuing data being received from instruments that were left there. We have 840 lbs of rock & soil. Last July & August the LROC Orbiter took many pictures of the sites in High Rez, wherein we see footprints and equipment that was left behind.
Now some money-grubbing crack-pot has taken 8 seconds of an obscure vid and built a lurid conspiracy theory about it.
I don't know how Jarrah does it. How does he keep coming back after getting his ass handed to him on one claim after another after another?
It supports my belief that conspiracy theorists are motivated by conceit probably more than anything else. Only a total Narcissist could keep cranking out more and more garbage and having it thrown back in his face as soon as he posts it, and keep doing it for years on end.
Jarrah would have known that Apollo 13 never entered lunar orbit had he bothered to watch the "making" of Ron Howard's masterpiece. Or, even better; listened to the commentary by Jim Lovell and his wife. (She cries during Tom Hanks' dream sequence of him walking on the Moon.)
"This was your dream that didn't come true." She says to her husband, in tears.
Are you kidding? Are there STILL morons out there that believe the moon landings did not happen? LOL You think the Soviet Union would have allowed NASA to get away with that? The Russians and the U.S. were is a fierce race to land a man on the moon. The Russians landed unmanned probes that brought back soil sample and moon rocks, just like Apollo did. Earth to morons - men have walked on the moon, simple as that!
The Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio. To see a partial summary of hoax evidence, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". The summary is on page 15 of the thread. It's the 7th post from the top.
This debate has become a war in which the disinfo agents try to bury the hoax evidence posted with their BS to reduce the number of people who see it and the hoax-believers try to thwart them by reposting it.
"To see a partial summary of hoax evidence, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". The summary is on page 15 of the thread. It's the 7th post from the top.
Thank you so much, I'm so sick and tired of these hoaxers. It's not because I don't like insults against NASA or USA,
I don't like insults against the men and women who dedicated, risked, and lost their lives for this monumental human endeavour of putting a human-being on another world.
My feelings exactly. I can't say I am over keen on US foreign policy, but being a Brit, I'm on think ice given our imperial past.
I think the Apollo programme was a jounrney for the whole of the US, and what they achived should be celebrated. The men who strapped themselves into a tin box at the top of a huge fireowrk deserve special mention.
Well the truth is, the British Empire never truly died, it just lost some territories, gained some new ones, dumped the monarchy for a republic, went from tea to coffee, and changed its accent...lol!
Apollo was more than just the US, because a lot of Germans were responsible for that journey. It shows that if you really want to do the impossible, you can. Just as Orville and Wilbur Wright.
Cuenta la leyenda que un aragones, cabeciduro como todos ellos, hundia un clavo en la pared a cabezazos. Pero a partir de cierto momento, el clavo dejo de penetrar, porque un vasco habia puesto su cabeza al otro lado del muro.
Un madrileño un poco chulo se pega una hostia enorme en la carretera y da varias vueltas de campana, finalmente el coche se queda boca abajo y llega gente a ayudarle a salir.
- Oiga, y de verdad no se ha hecho daño ?
- Passa, tio, yo vacio asi los ceniceros del coche, no ?
NASA claim the Apollo missions traveled to Moon by 'trans lunar orbit'. This is complete and utter nonsense, as it defies all laws of physics in relation to the way objects move in space. The only way to travel in space is by orbiting the planet from where the spacecraft was launched. On each orbit the spacecraft is moved out a little further from the planet which it is orbiting. You can imagine it as giro circles, or the groove on a vinyl record, moving from the center to the outer edge
Yes mercatormac I have thoughts of my own but since my english is not good enough for a clear explanation I prefer quote nasascam for a better articulation of my thought... I think that nobody explain how the rocket could achieve the scape speed if almost all the propellent burn out to climb to the low earth orbit, think about it a thing is to reach a low earth orbit and other thing is the power to escape the earth gravity and reach the moon, no to speak about the return to earth!
LOVE the vids, but the intro is WAY too long... My internet speed SUCKS since I moved and having to wait for that nonsense to load almost made me not watch...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I didnt realise that i havent digested Jarrahs film fully, but if it was stated by nasa that they did not enter lunar orbit then they are obiviously wrong, the craft whold have to enter lunar orbIt in order to do a return burn, do you like it,
return burn HA HA HA
Anyway it would be impossible to put the craft into a free return course tracjectry without burning the endgine whilst its on the far side of the moon, the narrater here doesent really understand anything about space flight
"the craft whold have to enter lunar orbIt in order to do a return burn"
Nope.
The Apollo crafts were on a free return trajectory. That means if there was a problem during the fight they would not have to do another burn and would instead slingshot around the moon and come directly back.
You should try doing some actual research some time.
The narrator (what the hell is a narrater) here actually has a degree in astrophysics, but don't let that stop your stupid ideas about a free return trajectory. The trajectory that Apollo 13 was placed on allowed it completely unpowered to be captured by the Moons gravity and "Slingshotted" around the Moon. You do not need to enter orbit to be on a free return trajectory.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So he has a degree in ass physics big deal so what, hes still an A**hole, and I dont like the way he Speaks, I certanly would not bend over in a Shower with him anyway, and please watch your tone when Your Addressing me Landingworshipapollo
I am the narrator you idiot :) It is nice to see that in you case, at 46 years of age, you are living proof that age does not equal experience or knowledge. 46 years and still thick as pig shit, you should be proud :)
Are you not a living proof that education does not mean a greater understanding, have you thought of joining a union of people of greater understanding....or have you already.
LA, why are you allowing this ... 'Person' to get you so upset? The majority of the world is populated with them. They hear a story that conflicts with what they assume is 'The Official Line' and latch onto it without a moment's hesitation.
This speaks to whatever is empty in their lives.
They cannot be bothered to look anything up, & are unaware that the people making these idiotic claims are only doing so to make money.
Don't legitimize them by responding, difficult though it may be.
Sad but true. These are the people who are so easily led astray. Their contempt for the "norm" is so vehement, that they would rather follow a fringe lunatic into sure darkness than search for the truth themselves.
As a matter of fact, if you are not already in orbit, then it is both physically and mathematically impossible to both enter orbit and be on a free return trajectory at the same time.
Technically, you are right. There Was a burn on the far-side. (21 minutes? Can't recall.) They used the descent-stage of the LM for it. Therefore there was no actual orbit, as they never circularized the trajectory. There were 4 or 5 eye-ball MCC's on the way back (I think)
However, your assumption that 'The Narrator Doesn't Understand Spaceflight' is ridiculous, and it's your tone that's offensive. I'm not seeing any constructive remarks - just self-indulgent, abusive comments. Typical.
"the craft whold have to enter lunar orbIt in order to do a return burn"
I think you are confusing "being under the influence of the moon's gravity" with "being orbit around the moon".
Relative to just the moon the plot of the craft would be a parabola. a retrograde burn is needed to turn that parabola in to an ellipse, this is true for any craft approaching a large celestial body. No such retrograde burn was ever performed (which is why they still had enough fuel to get home).
@brentis2529 You are confusing "looping around the Moon" with "orbiting the Moon". Your second paragraph is factually incorrect. There's a Wiki about free return trajectories.
@brentis2529 You are confusing "looping around the Moon" with "orbiting the Moon". Your second paragraph is factually incorrect. There's a Wiki about free return trajectories.
@brentis2529 You are confusing "looping around the Moon" with "orbiting the Moon". Your second paragraph is factually incorrect. There's a Wiki about free return trajectories.
@brentis2529 You are confusing "looping around the Moon" with "orbiting the Moon". Your second paragraph is factually incorrect. There's a Wiki about free return trajectories.
The person with the regional accent on this voicever and the person who posted this Film need permission to use Jarrahs Film as well, hopefully utube will realise this and take this post off
Yet another patronising Debunk film from surprisingly a non american with a repulsive regional accent,
Debunkers are always so very insecure, im sure, Mr Jarrah has done a lot of reserch on this subject and all credit to him, id rather listen to someone who has done extensive research, and has a decree of credibility than a faceless someone who tries to discredit someone else, voicing over this clip for no other reason than to massage their own ego
(17 July) Apollo Landing Sites 11, 14, 15, 16, & 17 were imaged.
For those who still doubt, please take a look and tell me how a robot, A: placed that ALSEP 500 meters from the Descent Stage. B: Who made all those pesky foot print trails?
In the next week, as the probe circularizes its lower orbit, new, clearer, more numerous pictures will come back, & you'll see the Rovers and probably the white, discarded EV Suits.
For some idiotic reason U-Toob prevents us from pasting an actual URL into the post-box, so we have to write 'DOT' in there with spacers. Pain in the behind, but there's the site.
@stalkervision Jarrah is a talented guy, makes entertaining films I actually enjoy watching.
But he has never proved anything to any scientific community on any level.
Anything you think he has proved is only in your head, and in the other heads of the cognitively crippled hoaxheads.Keep your fingers in your ears and ignore the actual evidence Nimrod.If you grew up in the 60's and followed NASA programs you'd have a better understanding, go read a book, slick videos are for the impressionable.
@stalkervision "Go to the moonfaker site" Go educate yourself: h t t p : //answers . yahoo . com/question/index?qid=20080907041743AAVkMNK w w w . hps . org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/spaceradiation . html w w w . bioone . org (general website) w w w . clavius . org/envradintro . html w w w . clavius . org/envsun . html h t t p : //w1 . rso . utah . edu/train/Bio . html About the trajectory, avoiding the VAB: w w w . braeunig . us/apollo/apollo11-TLI . htm
"Buzz" got his nickname from his younger sister when they were both children. She couldn't yet say: 'Brother', so said: 'Buzzer'. The moniker stuck, was shortened to Buzz, and (oddly) in 1988 he had his 1st name legally changed to Buzz, forgoing 'Edwin'.
Now 79, he is hale & very active in making Personal Appearances.
Just saying the name "buzz aldrin" cracks me up. Another footnote, hes mentioned in a hilarious monty python sketch done in german, about little red ridin hood
What i really want to know.... can you smoke out of a bong in space or is the Oxygen environment too dangerous????
Did NASA make lil pouches for em to get
high out of ? Who in their right mind would get up there and not have a few tokes? And why was he called "Buzz" Aldrin? I think about these things!! =/
There isn't a telescope anywhere that can resolve such small detail. They even tried it with Hubble a few years ago, but can only resolve to 40 meters.
There are 8 lbs of Lunar Meteor in 2 rocks found in the South Pole in 1979. Meteors are a different chemistry.
Why would they fake 6 landings? Why not just 1 or 2?
Why is the present Ares-Mars Program based almost exclusively upon updated Apollo technology?
Why would they lie about such a monumental thing? To fool the Russians? lol
dont embarass yourself any further, 'why would they lie?' lol you really think the people who run this world are just as noble as they are in the movies dont you? I'm sick of this whole pointless debate, everyone here claims to be so superior on the subject yet they seem to keep answering my questions with more questions. feel free to message me yet again because you all find my opinion so valuable.
oh feanor feanor feanor, how has it come to this? your once intelligently phrased opinion has been reduced to the ramblings of a bitter old man, you've let the argument become more important than the subject and thus our journey must end, I just cant bring myself to stoop to your level of petty insults.
yours truly,
boy/child (whichever makes you feel more superior)
not my problem mate, your the one trying to convince me not the other way round, i have no problem at all with you beleiving the landings happened but all you all get so vexed at me for having a different opinion, and its not my only contention, my point is i'm someone who needs to be convinced to believe, and 'geologists said the rocks are from the moon' just dont cut it for me, you must surely realise this debate cant go on, no hard feelings feanor
When I was 23 y/o I believed anything based on slim, little or no evidence.
JFK, RFK, MLK - all conspiracies I thought.
If the Moon Hoax concept actually had a shred of merit, I would probably have believed that too.
Someone's sister's friend's 2nd cousin told their Dutch uncle, who left a text about a website that says the Apollo was fake. Dave saw the site and Read It All twice so it must be true.
lol good one,'dutch uncle' theres no need to be racist! at least the other apollo mascots on here dont stoop so low as to make up a pointless little back story, it probably filled your whole day. plus JFK is not in the same ball park as this so you shouldent compare (I havent asked you a question but i'm pretty sure you'll hit reply instantly)
All I wanted was for you to tell me why you believe the Apollo Missions were hoaxed.
There's no need to get your tail feathers in a ruffle.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Your claim is very fringe, so let's have some proof - plain & simple
No hyperbole, no little-boy smug insulting remarks.
Straight up -- tell me all about the Apollo Hoax. You never know - maybe I missed something over the last 40 years of studying every facet of this very subject.
I'm not the one who started the 'little boy smug remarks' ('Someone's sister's friend's 2nd cousin told their Dutch uncle') very adult way to further your point. back to the issue. in answer to your first question '...tell me why you believe the Apollo Missions were hoaxed', this is ridiculously simple even you apollo die-hards must be able to see this. The cold war was showing no signs of cooling down,
...the US as always will never back down whatever the cost be it lives or money (a lot of money spent on apollo, countless lives taken in vietnam, dont contest these blatant facts) they had to prove to russia they were more advanced and land a big blow in the cold war as well as very welcome distraction and massive morale boost during the unwinnable vietnam war, to this day russia would still be rubbing it in if nasa had said 'we cant do it'...
, governments have done far worse than fake moon landings and plenty of people have taken part so i dont think its inconceivable that its a set up, after all thousands of germans killed innocent jews during a war because they recieved orders to do so, so when people were told to fake the landing for the sake of america, they did so. you dont have to agree with this but you cant say its inplausible, (why would you study it for 40 years if you believed it 100%, seems strange)...
Or they could GO for the sake of America. Or if the Soviets had gotten the N1 working, the Soviets going to the moon for the glory of the USSR. Any political motivation to fake it, would also be political motivations to actually go. Now, if you can prove it was actually impossible to go, well, then that's different, but you have to PROVE that. I want your evidence, if you don't mind.
In my view, (& I'm not alone), the motivation to go Was political. Oh, the engineers and scientists were in heaven of course - but at the time the promise was made in 1962, the US was woefully behind the Soviets in space tech. (or so we thought!)
By 65/66 the US had far surpassed the Soviets in space tech & they were basically showboating till the N-1 could be completed.
But it never flew, & even if it had, may not have made a difference.
No doubt about it, the motivation was definitely political. I often wish the Soviets had taken up Kennedy's offer, and they had gone to the moon together. That would have been something, eh?
as far as 'evidence' goes, none of it would stand up in court except the moon rock, and moon rock has been found on earth so theres reasonable doubt in that area. I know lots of people with legitimate qualifications in science and they all say the same thing, nasa saying 'it happened' isnt proof . I want to believe it happened, why wouldent I? surely theres a telescope that can see a massive landing module and buggy on the moon? show me that and i will eat my hat with a side of humble pie.
I agree with LandingApollo and 10Feanor. There is a lot of solid proof. Ofcourse it depends on a persons 'background' if he accepts an scientific item as proof.
Once more, most of the hoaxpeople are not interested in science or any spaceprogram. It's all about distrust and problems with authority. About politics, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, you name it. Besides, 'conspiracies' are fun. Real life is boring.
Like it or not, but Americans landed on the moon in 1969.
well 'Landing Apollo' I admire your enthusiasm but i'm still not convinced, i've always wanted to know where the weapons of mass destruction are in iraq though, perhaps you could explain that aswell?
i've read everything mate, then i read it all again. in response to
"it's up to YOU to prove what you think is true" this makes no sense, by making declarations of achievement like nasa did, THEY have to prove it to the world, they havent done so convincingly enough, in my opinion this is because it didnt happen. its like declaring i've broke the world record for the hundred metres and then saying "prove i didnt or accept it", neither of us can conclusively prove the other wrong. end of debate
You are wrong Dave. The Moon landings are documented, scientific fact. They are considered a factual event by all nations, all official institutions and pretty much all of the world. Looking at this, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that it HASN'T occured. The Moon landings are already documented scientific fact. If you wish to challenge that you need to bring in some evidence that proves said accusations. This is not me saying these, these are the rules of logical debate.
The proof for the landing is already there. Rocks bought back from the mission examined by scientists from nations all over the world and recognised for their uniqueness. While we are on the subject of radiation, can you provide some evidence that the environment outside of the Van Allen Belts would kill the Astronauts? Do you understand the impact of radiation on the Apollo Command Module?
I can fully understand your frustration at some people. I was 15 when Apollo8 went round the moon and (think) I understood the physics even then. No internet back then but every morsel of information was chewed over by the world press and anyone even remotely connected with the project was dragged into a tv studio and their knowledge extracted by enthusiastic tv journalists.
Kids should always question, it is healthy, but gods sake learn something before screaming fake.
Also it facinates me that some even claim the Saturn rockets never existed. Went to America and watched 17 go up from just over three miles away. If they were able to fake that then landing on the moon must have been dead easy. LOL
The Saturn-5 with its 5 F-1 motors is, to date, the most powerful moving object ever built. Generating nearly 8-million lbs of thrust at liftoff, it consumed 6 million gallons of fuel in just over 8 minutes while lofting 60 tons of payload into orbit.
It would rattle windows over 125 miles away, and the night-launch of Apollo 17 could be seen for over 300.
It is astonishing to think that some people still believe that this behemoth of engineering was somehow dummied.
Imagine what it was like from a very few miles. In the hours leading up to the event there was a lot of activity. When it came to the final few minutes everything fell silent bar a few claxon noises and the lights of vehicles speeding away from the pad. When those engines lit up and the rocket just sat there I thought for a moment that it was exploding. Damn, I never saw such fire reaching hundreds of feet behind. It was awsome, it was terrifying, ...........It was beautiful..
yeah thats what i'll do, go through all the old books and docs and provide a nice list for someone who already has there next response ready to discredit whatever i've put down. (i would have loved to have read nasa's official account on discrediting hoax theories but for some reason they didnt end up releasing it) read below for my final take on this exhaustive subject. I know it must be unbearable when someone disagrees with you but thats life i'm afraid.
like santa claus i think we wish the moon landings were real, but if you just think about it for a bit theres an overwhelming amount of inconsistencies throughout the entire nasa account of the apollo missions, put it this way, after all the rivalry with russia and millions of tax dollars were they really gonna turn around and say it cant be done?
I dont think everyone knew not by a long shot, and they obviously already spent the money seeing if it was achievable long before they realised it could not be done. the fact is you cant eliminate the possibilty they have been faked, If they had happened we would have seen some more conclusive evidence by now. for nasa to declare they achieved it put the burdon of proof on them not me. i believe what i see, and thats a bloke in a spacesuit with a flag, nothing more.
firstly maths can always be done all you need is paper and a pencil. the technology of sending an object to the moon is obviously possible but having spacemen inside is where problems arise, once you leave our protective ozone belts radiation becomes immense, i dont believe with '69 technology they could come back completely unharmed let alone with perfect photographs. like i said before its up to nasa to prove me wrong not the other way round, my opinion relies on proof, yours relies on faith
Just a note to compliment you on a fine job - both in presentation as well as articulation.
I confess to being jaded by the very often less informed and defamatory members of the present '20's-Gen' - especially here in these UTube forums. It's refreshing to meet one who has done his homework (correctly) with panache and flair.
Why do people who believe the moon landing is a hoax generally have poorer grammar? The same goes to those who believes that September 11 was an inside job. Is that an indication of something?
this video states that the engines "burned" for a" grand total of just over 5 minutes of firing".. Jarrah stated 6 minutes. Do the math and they burned for 5minutes38.5seconds. Jarrah figured it closer than this video did and the video commentary made fun of Jarrah's numbers. Get your facts straight. The lies(or plain stupidity) and misleads in this video makes is look more fake than the actual moon landing
You are right that he is wrong. But you made so much fun of him that i couldnt help but to point out your mis-calculation. Hey in no "conspi...ther..ist" Im just curious How come the Apollo's engines didnt blow the moondust away on landing? You seem like you are the right person to ask
It did to a certain extent. Google as11-40-5921. Other factors include shutting the LM engine off before actually hitting the surface, and the engine being throttled down so it wasn't exerting that much pressure on the surface.
After making fun of Jarrah and stating that he should "leave it to the experts " on the fourth burn that was for "11.5" seconds. The math i did makes it 21.5seconds. Probally doesnt really matter but the commentator emphasized Jarrah's miscalculations then makes his own dumbass mistake
You are indeed correct I have miscalculated. It doesn't change the fundamentals of the video though and the blatant fact that Jarrah is wrong. I may have made an honest make with the math, but Jarrah misunderstood the entire idea of a free return tracjectory.
That would likely make it the first multi-million dollar scam in the history of the us government in which they actually spent the money on paying for what they claimed they paid for.
With all the technology required paid for and assembled and brave trained men willing to die trying, why stop?
I am curious, where exactly do Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee and Ed White factor into the conspiracy theorists story?
What morbid ways do they weave them into their speculations?
I'm sure the lawyers for New Line Cinema would be interested in your infringement of their music copyright from the "Lord of the Rings". As an artist, I find your robbery is disgusting. I'm sure you'll just say you're sampling but that's a crook's defense. Otherwise, nice video.
Actually, the music was written was written by John Williams, not New Line Cinema. I'm relatively sure that John Williams is not going to give a shit about a video, on top of the other fifty odd thousand videos on youtube.
1st: No it wouldn't as it was designed with rupture disks to prevent this happening
2nd: It pushed it off course a small amount yes, this was corrected with a small burn, unless you are seriously trying to suggest that the 'explosion' of the oxygen tanks was enough to offset the trajectory A13 was put on by the Saturn V?
3rd: They had submitted the report by June 1970 and changes were made on the A14 craft based on the report. Apollo budget was huge at this point thus changes were made quickly
Of course the moon landings are a hoax, these astro-NOTS upon return said they never saw any stars. if you watch the post mission press conference you will see 3 guys scared shitless about lying to the world. They had the help of hidden teleprompters in their desk and looked guilty as sin. Micheal Collins looking at the other 'nots and nervously saying "i don't remember seeing any stars"
I dont even care to analyse the hoax analysis. those people dont even try to enjoy the posibilitys of human achivements. We can be great. Fuck bureaucruauseaty ;)
Why would they need so much time? Has there been no technological benefit to the many times we've gone before? Are you saying that the delay is due to budget short-comings solely? From what I understand there are technical difficulties that are delaying the mission, unsolvable problems. If that is true, why should that be? We already a working craft in the Smithsonian... right?
"We already a working craft in the Smithsonian... right?"
Um... No we don't. There are only 3 unused Saturn V Rockets left and the one at the Kennedy Space center in Florida is Rusted, Full of holes and had weeds growing inside of it not too long ago. I don't know the condition of the other 2, but I doubt they are *space ready*
the problem is the radiation, same problem with apollo, but it didn't stop them than, and if they felt like sending the astronauts there right now they can, they just wanna take care of that set back because they'd rather the astronauts not get messed up from it. not saying it had really bad effects on the apollo crew, it's just they want to stay there longer than they did back then, which means they need to work on better shielding for it
Were not those materials used in the craft: electronics, rare metals, etc, more expensive then and less readily available? These materials are cheaper now and more readily available. My IPOD is more advance than anything they had on that craft. What's that cost? What's a modern computer cost: $2000.00 I'll donate it. If they could there with what they had in 1969, they darn sure could get there with my computer.
To tell you the truth, I don't care about this mumbo jumbo anymore. I am currently concentrating on renewable energy and how we can benefit from it in the future, if we make the change now.
Ha, Ha, Ha. Now geniuses, explain why it's taking NASA "Moon Experts" till 2020 to get us "back" on the moon with TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY! They did it in 1969 but they can't do it now? they even delayed an UNMANNED PROBE to the moon. Hello! We got ourselves a live one here!
Faustulus777 "Now geniuses, explain why it's taking NASA "Moon Experts" till 2020 to get us "back" on the moon with TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY!"
NASA will spend $428 million next year on Project Constellation, that's less than 5% of Apollo's budget (~$10 billion per year, 2005 inflation adjusted).
So, if Apollo took 8 years at $10 billion a year and Project Constellation takes 12 years at $0.5 billion, that's 13.33 times better then Apollo.
I have an idea. Lets put everyone who dosent believe we landed on the moon on a rocket land them next to an apollo landing site show them the lem bottom and then throw them out with no suits. lol
id like to ask a few questions please, seeing as there is a qualified physicist here.....firstly how did they shield against the van allen belt?, secondly how come there is no crater beneath the landing craft (apollo 11) even though thrusters were used to touch down, thirdly who was it that took that awesome sweeping footage of the return pod ejecting from the lander base?
whackitov 1 month ago
@whackitov Difficult with limited characters, but for the Van Allen belts: 1) The spacecraft moved through the belts in four hours, and they were protected from the IONIZING radiation by the aluminium hull. The orbital transfer trajectory through the belts was plotted to give as little exposure as possible. Dr James Van Allen who discovered the belts rebutted claims that the radiation levels were too dangerous - this should speak volumes!
LandingApollo 1 month ago
@whackitov 2) There shouldn't be a crater. The descent system was throttled down by a massive amount during the final seconds, basically enough to support the landers own weight. The pressure put out by the engine nozzle (bearing in mind that it expands much quicker in a vacuum than on earth) was hitting the Moon at 1.5psi. Not a lot at all, thus no crater. What it do do we scatter a lot of fine surface dust, and certain photos show scouring, google as11psr.pdf and go to page 95 onwards
LandingApollo 1 month ago
@whackitov 3) It was a camera on the Lunar Rover that could be remotely controlled from Earth. It was panned up back from Mission control. Hope this answers your questions :)
LandingApollo 1 month ago
Fake it to the moon
Nazi Apollo
Jarrah has shown you nasa hoaxsters what liars you are
DeadJesus100 7 months ago
@DeadJesus100 You are a sad, deluded fool. Jarrah has been debunked time after time. The fact that he doesn't even know that Apollo 13 got back to earth on a free return trajectory that needed nothing more than minor course corrections and its own momentum tells us all we need to know about his level of knowledge.
BertieSlack 7 months ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@BertieSlack retarded flagfucker
Jarah has done so much good expsoing the fake apollo missions on youtube.
Phil Plait the Nasa Propaganda Whore is too scared to debate
Jarah in public because he knows he will be made an utter fool of.
Apollo 13 was a soap opera
DeadJesus100 7 months ago
@DeadJesus100 Oh dear...
FSAthe1st 3 days ago
@BertieSlack
I know, it's incredible. Jarrah is studying astrophysics and he did not understand that Apollo 13 returned on a free return trajectory. I'm afraid little Jarrah put too much faith in Ralph Rene, a man that showed he did not understand orbital mechanics.
HiggsBosonNova 5 months ago in playlist Moon landing hoax conspiracies: Debunked 2
Apollo is fake. I have never seen this "moon" thing they say they landed on. The moon was made up by the US government so they could fake 9/11.
LonghornPhysicist 9 months ago 2
This has to be the greatest pwnage of Jarrah on YouTube... and that's saying something, since he's had his ass handed to him that many times, his legs are in danger of falling off.
lukequixotesanjose 9 months ago 14
@lukequixotesanjose
Well said Luke.
Rob260259 9 months ago
This is an interesting point: the trip around the "back-side" of the moon, required no propulsion from the engine, thus granting them the fuel savings they needed to make the later course correction on the return leg of the mission. I don't know who this Jarrah guy is, but I will say that, based on the fact that this video is a response to his claims, he is definitely omitting much, in favor of his claims. And, just as LandingAppollo says here: just a little research explains everything.
AlienShadow5000 10 months ago
This is absolute crap
spacehopperballs 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
they still faked it, you bbc tool
Quex01 1 year ago
Comment removed
Quex01 1 year ago
If something was dodgy about the moon landings, wouldn't wikileaks tell us?
crocfme 1 year ago
I'd like to see moon landing debunkers debunk the publically-published mathematics NASA has offered to show that space flight to the moon is quite possible.
denverreallyblows 1 year ago
Thank You for putting this up. There are so many idiots out there that don't take the time to learn some of the simplest laws of physics. Although they give us a good laugh, it's quite disrespectful (especially in 13's case) of the bravery, ingenuity, and guts the crew displayed.
sorover111 1 year ago
I am glad that Jarrahs is not in the space agency because he would actually be foolish to put the Apollo craft in lunar orbit killing of any astronauts. There is a space simulator Orbiter 2006 and anyone should discover themselves that no burn was needed to get Apollo back except for minor course corrections to get the incoming angle in Earths atmosphere within tolerance.
obaeyens 1 year ago
So how many videos did Jarrah make, trying to talk his way around this? How much "I-wrote, you-wrote, he-said, she-said" bullshit did he generate? This is a simple slam-dunk of one of his many bogus claims, but Jarrah feels he can talk his way out of anything. Well, after all, since he believes he is smarter AND more honest than all the experts in the world for the last 40 years, it should be easy for him to simply make facts go away. Or so he thinks.
Well done.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago
Holy copyright infringement, batman! Does Peter Jackson know you took like half the soundtrack of the Lord of the Rings?
Steveosaurous 1 year ago
@Steveosaurous
Holy shit, get New line on the phone! We have a case of mass infringement!!!!!
GavinPiano 1 year ago
Brilliant. Thank you!
aeroflying 1 year ago
¿Cuál es el colmo de un tuerto?
-Llamarse Casimiro
norjop 1 year ago
There are around 65 hours of video and thousands of still photographs associated with the 6 Moon Landings. There are continuing data being received from instruments that were left there. We have 840 lbs of rock & soil. Last July & August the LROC Orbiter took many pictures of the sites in High Rez, wherein we see footprints and equipment that was left behind.
Now some money-grubbing crack-pot has taken 8 seconds of an obscure vid and built a lurid conspiracy theory about it.
Good luck with that.
10Feanor 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There was no moon landing,JFK was a liberal fraud.
MrTabby5000 1 year ago
@MrTabby5000 There is no MrTabby5000, MrTabby5000 is a automated bot to create a misinformation...
Anything can be said and accused, you gotta back it up.
rexregum 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
damn your voice is annoying
verbod 1 year ago
I don't know how Jarrah does it. How does he keep coming back after getting his ass handed to him on one claim after another after another?
It supports my belief that conspiracy theorists are motivated by conceit probably more than anything else. Only a total Narcissist could keep cranking out more and more garbage and having it thrown back in his face as soon as he posts it, and keep doing it for years on end.
Astrobrant2 1 year ago 2
@Astrobrant2
Jarrah would have known that Apollo 13 never entered lunar orbit had he bothered to watch the "making" of Ron Howard's masterpiece. Or, even better; listened to the commentary by Jim Lovell and his wife. (She cries during Tom Hanks' dream sequence of him walking on the Moon.)
"This was your dream that didn't come true." She says to her husband, in tears.
TremorHellborn 1 year ago
do you know that that "one" rhymes with "fun"? and not "gone" in english? please look it up in a dictionary. northerners cannot tell.
muskier 1 year ago
Are you kidding? Are there STILL morons out there that believe the moon landings did not happen? LOL You think the Soviet Union would have allowed NASA to get away with that? The Russians and the U.S. were is a fierce race to land a man on the moon. The Russians landed unmanned probes that brought back soil sample and moon rocks, just like Apollo did. Earth to morons - men have walked on the moon, simple as that!
BbearWARRIOR 1 year ago
This is a little off-topic but-
The Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio. To see a partial summary of hoax evidence, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". The summary is on page 15 of the thread. It's the 7th post from the top.
Also, do a YouTube search on "MarsFaker".
Cosmored 1 year ago
@Cosmored We're still waiting for part 2 buddy. How long is that going to be now?
mercatormac 1 year ago
This debate has become a war in which the disinfo agents try to bury the hoax evidence posted with their BS to reduce the number of people who see it and the hoax-believers try to thwart them by reposting it.
"To see a partial summary of hoax evidence, google "The Naked Scientists". In the "New Theories" section of the forum there's a thread entitled "Did We Land on the Moon?". The summary is on page 15 of the thread. It's the 7th post from the top.
Also, do a YouTube search on "MarsFaker"
Cosmored 1 year ago
@Cosmored - Thanks for your diligent research Cosmored
bitterbonker 1 year ago
So many conspiracies.....so little time!
skills1ent 1 year ago 2
Thank you so much, I'm so sick and tired of these hoaxers. It's not because I don't like insults against NASA or USA,
I don't like insults against the men and women who dedicated, risked, and lost their lives for this monumental human endeavour of putting a human-being on another world.
austenbosten 1 year ago 2
My feelings exactly. I can't say I am over keen on US foreign policy, but being a Brit, I'm on think ice given our imperial past.
I think the Apollo programme was a jounrney for the whole of the US, and what they achived should be celebrated. The men who strapped themselves into a tin box at the top of a huge fireowrk deserve special mention.
LukeQuixoteofSanJose 1 year ago
@LukeQuixoteofSanJose
Well the truth is, the British Empire never truly died, it just lost some territories, gained some new ones, dumped the monarchy for a republic, went from tea to coffee, and changed its accent...lol!
Apollo was more than just the US, because a lot of Germans were responsible for that journey. It shows that if you really want to do the impossible, you can. Just as Orville and Wilbur Wright.
austenbosten 1 year ago
Cuenta la leyenda que un aragones, cabeciduro como todos ellos, hundia un clavo en la pared a cabezazos. Pero a partir de cierto momento, el clavo dejo de penetrar, porque un vasco habia puesto su cabeza al otro lado del muro.
norjop 2 years ago
Un madrileño un poco chulo se pega una hostia enorme en la carretera y da varias vueltas de campana, finalmente el coche se queda boca abajo y llega gente a ayudarle a salir.
- Oiga, y de verdad no se ha hecho daño ?
- Passa, tio, yo vacio asi los ceniceros del coche, no ?
norjop 2 years ago
Say "Fra Mauro", not "Frau Mauro"! It's named after a 15th Century Venetian cartographer.
Scientior 2 years ago
NASA claim the Apollo missions traveled to Moon by 'trans lunar orbit'. This is complete and utter nonsense, as it defies all laws of physics in relation to the way objects move in space. The only way to travel in space is by orbiting the planet from where the spacecraft was launched. On each orbit the spacecraft is moved out a little further from the planet which it is orbiting. You can imagine it as giro circles, or the groove on a vinyl record, moving from the center to the outer edge
MicaelaAlmodovar 2 years ago
@MicaelaAlmodovar
So virtually every moon probe is fake then. American, Russian, Chinese, Japanese and Indian.
Do you have any thoughts of your own beyond copying WORD FOR WORD from nasascam?
mercatormac 2 years ago
MicaelaAlmodovar 2 years ago
@MicaelaAlmodovar Fair enough.
As you may know the Skylab space station was based on the 3rd stage of a Saturn 5.
Now assuming you believe Skylab is real, why couldn't they launch the 3rd stage of the Saturn 5 into orbit, but full of fuel instead for a TLI burn?
mercatormac 2 years ago
@MicaelaAlmodovar
That's one way, and it is much less fuel intensive. Chandrayaan 1 used such a method. But it's not the only method. Luna 3 used a similar trajectory.
mentallandscape*com/L_Luna3*htm
loperspest 1 year ago
@MicaelaAlmodovar
WOW this statement is what I call ignorance!
If I were you then I would start learning about escape velocity and Delta V.
obaeyens 1 year ago
Well done!!!!
ghartran31 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
of course they had enough euel how much do you need when your in l e o the rest was done in the sim so that ground control belived it too.
bigfist255 2 years ago
LOVE the vids, but the intro is WAY too long... My internet speed SUCKS since I moved and having to wait for that nonsense to load almost made me not watch...
RioOhKei 2 years ago
nicely done mate!
Ukrainskilox 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I didnt realise that i havent digested Jarrahs film fully, but if it was stated by nasa that they did not enter lunar orbit then they are obiviously wrong, the craft whold have to enter lunar orbIt in order to do a return burn, do you like it,
return burn HA HA HA
Anyway it would be impossible to put the craft into a free return course tracjectry without burning the endgine whilst its on the far side of the moon, the narrater here doesent really understand anything about space flight
brentis2529 2 years ago
"the craft whold have to enter lunar orbIt in order to do a return burn"
Nope.
The Apollo crafts were on a free return trajectory. That means if there was a problem during the fight they would not have to do another burn and would instead slingshot around the moon and come directly back.
You should try doing some actual research some time.
ytmoog 2 years ago
A return burn is only needed if the craft actually entered lunar orbit.
Apollo 13 did not enter lunar orbit.
The 'free return trajectory' does not require an extra burn, that was the whole point of it.
ytmoog 2 years ago
The narrator (what the hell is a narrater) here actually has a degree in astrophysics, but don't let that stop your stupid ideas about a free return trajectory. The trajectory that Apollo 13 was placed on allowed it completely unpowered to be captured by the Moons gravity and "Slingshotted" around the Moon. You do not need to enter orbit to be on a free return trajectory.
LandingApollo 2 years ago 10
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So he has a degree in ass physics big deal so what, hes still an A**hole, and I dont like the way he Speaks, I certanly would not bend over in a Shower with him anyway, and please watch your tone when Your Addressing me Landingworshipapollo
brentis2529 2 years ago
I am the narrator you idiot :) It is nice to see that in you case, at 46 years of age, you are living proof that age does not equal experience or knowledge. 46 years and still thick as pig shit, you should be proud :)
LandingApollo 2 years ago 13
@LandingApollo
Are you not a living proof that education does not mean a greater understanding, have you thought of joining a union of people of greater understanding....or have you already.
johnsenkenn 2 years ago
LA, why are you allowing this ... 'Person' to get you so upset? The majority of the world is populated with them. They hear a story that conflicts with what they assume is 'The Official Line' and latch onto it without a moment's hesitation.
This speaks to whatever is empty in their lives.
They cannot be bothered to look anything up, & are unaware that the people making these idiotic claims are only doing so to make money.
Don't legitimize them by responding, difficult though it may be.
Feanor
10Feanor 2 years ago
Sad but true. These are the people who are so easily led astray. Their contempt for the "norm" is so vehement, that they would rather follow a fringe lunatic into sure darkness than search for the truth themselves.
philwebb59 2 years ago
As a matter of fact, if you are not already in orbit, then it is both physically and mathematically impossible to both enter orbit and be on a free return trajectory at the same time.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Technically, you are right. There Was a burn on the far-side. (21 minutes? Can't recall.) They used the descent-stage of the LM for it. Therefore there was no actual orbit, as they never circularized the trajectory. There were 4 or 5 eye-ball MCC's on the way back (I think)
However, your assumption that 'The Narrator Doesn't Understand Spaceflight' is ridiculous, and it's your tone that's offensive. I'm not seeing any constructive remarks - just self-indulgent, abusive comments. Typical.
Feanor
10Feanor 2 years ago
"the craft whold have to enter lunar orbIt in order to do a return burn"
I think you are confusing "being under the influence of the moon's gravity" with "being orbit around the moon".
Relative to just the moon the plot of the craft would be a parabola. a retrograde burn is needed to turn that parabola in to an ellipse, this is true for any craft approaching a large celestial body. No such retrograde burn was ever performed (which is why they still had enough fuel to get home).
SirMildredPierce 2 years ago
@brentis2529 You are confusing "looping around the Moon" with "orbiting the Moon". Your second paragraph is factually incorrect. There's a Wiki about free return trajectories.
Chew1964 1 year ago
@brentis2529 You are confusing "looping around the Moon" with "orbiting the Moon". Your second paragraph is factually incorrect. There's a Wiki about free return trajectories.
Chew1964 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brentis2529 You are confusing "looping around the Moon" with "orbiting the Moon". Your second paragraph is factually incorrect. There's a Wiki about free return trajectories.
Chew1964 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brentis2529 You are confusing "looping around the Moon" with "orbiting the Moon". Your second paragraph is factually incorrect. There's a Wiki about free return trajectories.
Chew1964 1 year ago
The person with the regional accent on this voicever and the person who posted this Film need permission to use Jarrahs Film as well, hopefully utube will realise this and take this post off
brentis2529 2 years ago
You don't understand copyright law, do you?
GavinPiano 2 years ago
Using clips from other films in order to comment on them is allowed under 'fair use' laws.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Yet another patronising Debunk film from surprisingly a non american with a repulsive regional accent,
Debunkers are always so very insecure, im sure, Mr Jarrah has done a lot of reserch on this subject and all credit to him, id rather listen to someone who has done extensive research, and has a decree of credibility than a faceless someone who tries to discredit someone else, voicing over this clip for no other reason than to massage their own ego
Whoever posted this video should F**K Off
brentis2529 2 years ago
"Mr Jarrah has done a lot of reserch on this subject"
If so how did he miss the fact that Apollo 13 never entered lunar orbit?
ytmoog 2 years ago
just another retarded debunk film.....
thedayitriedtodie 2 years ago
3:10 where are those numbers ur saying?
thedayitriedtodie 2 years ago
It is mission elapsed time on the right hand side. A quick calculation.
GavinPiano 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear All,
I have some questions about psychology:
(1) Why do we enjoy space travel and flying?
(2) Why do we have a perception that space is closer related with America?
(3) Why do we relate space and aviation with Americans' culture and values?
(4) Why do we so curious what is in the sky?
THANK YOU IN ADVANCE for your creative ideas and brainstorm!!! :)
applesweeter 2 years ago
Did anyone see the LROC images today?
(17 July) Apollo Landing Sites 11, 14, 15, 16, & 17 were imaged.
For those who still doubt, please take a look and tell me how a robot, A: placed that ALSEP 500 meters from the Descent Stage. B: Who made all those pesky foot print trails?
In the next week, as the probe circularizes its lower orbit, new, clearer, more numerous pictures will come back, & you'll see the Rovers and probably the white, discarded EV Suits.
Happy Anniversary!
Feanor
10Feanor 2 years ago 4
@10Feanor Are those detailed pics available now, can't remember seeing them.
Lookup2Wakeup 1 year ago
@Lookup2Wakeup
Go To:
lroc DOT sese DOT asu DOT edu/index DOT html
10Feanor 1 year ago
@Lookup2Wakeup
For some idiotic reason U-Toob prevents us from pasting an actual URL into the post-box, so we have to write 'DOT' in there with spacers. Pain in the behind, but there's the site.
Great ongoing lunar photography.
Best,
Feanor
10Feanor 1 year ago
@10Feanor Go to the moonfaker site and see how jarrah White proved the LRO pictures are all photo-shopped.
stalkervision 1 year ago
@stalkervision Jarrah is a talented guy, makes entertaining films I actually enjoy watching.
But he has never proved anything to any scientific community on any level.
Anything you think he has proved is only in your head, and in the other heads of the cognitively crippled hoaxheads.Keep your fingers in your ears and ignore the actual evidence Nimrod.If you grew up in the 60's and followed NASA programs you'd have a better understanding, go read a book, slick videos are for the impressionable.
Tweekerhead 1 year ago 2
Rob260259 9 months ago
Goof,
Just a minor little footnote here ...
"Buzz" got his nickname from his younger sister when they were both children. She couldn't yet say: 'Brother', so said: 'Buzzer'. The moniker stuck, was shortened to Buzz, and (oddly) in 1988 he had his 1st name legally changed to Buzz, forgoing 'Edwin'.
Now 79, he is hale & very active in making Personal Appearances.
Feanor
10Feanor 2 years ago 2
Hope he gets to see the next one. 2020 and Project Constellation can't come soon enough!
loperspest 2 years ago
Just saying the name "buzz aldrin" cracks me up. Another footnote, hes mentioned in a hilarious monty python sketch done in german, about little red ridin hood
rotagen5 2 years ago
hmmm that is interesting to learn. On another documentary Fraiser Martin Crane states that Buzz got his name because he was afraid of bees.
Ted7864 2 years ago
What i really want to know.... can you smoke out of a bong in space or is the Oxygen environment too dangerous????
Did NASA make lil pouches for em to get
high out of ? Who in their right mind would get up there and not have a few tokes? And why was he called "Buzz" Aldrin? I think about these things!! =/
goofywilly 2 years ago
You really don't understand to much about a vacuum do you.
Sheesh.
Everybody knows that there was no ad hoc 'Bong'! This was NASA for cryin out loud!
They had Space-Age water-cooled filtration & ignition systems built right into the PLISS-packs. This way, the suit itself became the bong!
"Like, dude. The Eagle has like landed and shit."
Odd Truth: Col Aldrin, an admitted alcoholic at that time, did in fact bring not only Sacramental Wine, but also a pint of Vodka!
This is a true story.
Feanor
10Feanor 2 years ago
So.... In the planning stages, some ex Nazi Rocket scientist actually suggested,
"Ve must provide some vay for dees
Aztroonauts to spark one up"? Yeah...
I can see that. Still...where is the fun in
it if the dude has to enjoy his Bud of choice thru a sterile,rubberized, watercooled fanny pack? Much better
sneaking off behind the Retro control
circuitry and rollin one! I bet those dudes
got ripped regularly. Only one pint of vodka? "Houston we've got a problem"!
We outa shit!"
goofywilly 2 years ago
Thank you for this video, Jarreh needs someone who can debunk his errored theories.
UnderManiac 2 years ago
There isn't a telescope anywhere that can resolve such small detail. They even tried it with Hubble a few years ago, but can only resolve to 40 meters.
There are 8 lbs of Lunar Meteor in 2 rocks found in the South Pole in 1979. Meteors are a different chemistry.
Why would they fake 6 landings? Why not just 1 or 2?
Why is the present Ares-Mars Program based almost exclusively upon updated Apollo technology?
Why would they lie about such a monumental thing? To fool the Russians? lol
Feanor
10Feanor 2 years ago
dont embarass yourself any further, 'why would they lie?' lol you really think the people who run this world are just as noble as they are in the movies dont you? I'm sick of this whole pointless debate, everyone here claims to be so superior on the subject yet they seem to keep answering my questions with more questions. feel free to message me yet again because you all find my opinion so valuable.
daveqc1986 2 years ago
1st error: Assigning motivation to my comments.
2nd error: Assuming for a nano-second that I give an abiding shit whether you live or die.
3rd error: Assuming that you or these other children have the remotest clue about how anything in the world 'really' works.
Give a child the internet & he thinks that by going to some stupid website he somehow has access to "All Knowledge".
4th error: Assuming for an instant that you know what you're talking about.
Sit quietly while the grown-ups talk, boy.
10Feanor 2 years ago
oh feanor feanor feanor, how has it come to this? your once intelligently phrased opinion has been reduced to the ramblings of a bitter old man, you've let the argument become more important than the subject and thus our journey must end, I just cant bring myself to stoop to your level of petty insults.
yours truly,
boy/child (whichever makes you feel more superior)
daveqc1986 2 years ago
I'm trying to reply -- UTube won't let me ...
10Feanor 2 years ago
not my problem mate, your the one trying to convince me not the other way round, i have no problem at all with you beleiving the landings happened but all you all get so vexed at me for having a different opinion, and its not my only contention, my point is i'm someone who needs to be convinced to believe, and 'geologists said the rocks are from the moon' just dont cut it for me, you must surely realise this debate cant go on, no hard feelings feanor
daveqc1986 2 years ago
watch?v=bm5vmYrjtFg
greenmagoos 2 years ago
Conspiracies Are fun!
When I was 23 y/o I believed anything based on slim, little or no evidence.
JFK, RFK, MLK - all conspiracies I thought.
If the Moon Hoax concept actually had a shred of merit, I would probably have believed that too.
Someone's sister's friend's 2nd cousin told their Dutch uncle, who left a text about a website that says the Apollo was fake. Dave saw the site and Read It All twice so it must be true.
This is true Research.
830 lbs of alien rock and soil doesn't lie.
Feanor
10Feanor 2 years ago
lol good one,'dutch uncle' theres no need to be racist! at least the other apollo mascots on here dont stoop so low as to make up a pointless little back story, it probably filled your whole day. plus JFK is not in the same ball park as this so you shouldent compare (I havent asked you a question but i'm pretty sure you'll hit reply instantly)
daveqc1986 2 years ago
LOL!
All I wanted was for you to tell me why you believe the Apollo Missions were hoaxed.
There's no need to get your tail feathers in a ruffle.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Your claim is very fringe, so let's have some proof - plain & simple
No hyperbole, no little-boy smug insulting remarks.
Straight up -- tell me all about the Apollo Hoax. You never know - maybe I missed something over the last 40 years of studying every facet of this very subject.
I'm all ears.
Feanor
10Feanor 2 years ago
I'm not the one who started the 'little boy smug remarks' ('Someone's sister's friend's 2nd cousin told their Dutch uncle') very adult way to further your point. back to the issue. in answer to your first question '...tell me why you believe the Apollo Missions were hoaxed', this is ridiculously simple even you apollo die-hards must be able to see this. The cold war was showing no signs of cooling down,
daveqc1986 2 years ago
...the US as always will never back down whatever the cost be it lives or money (a lot of money spent on apollo, countless lives taken in vietnam, dont contest these blatant facts) they had to prove to russia they were more advanced and land a big blow in the cold war as well as very welcome distraction and massive morale boost during the unwinnable vietnam war, to this day russia would still be rubbing it in if nasa had said 'we cant do it'...
daveqc1986 2 years ago
, governments have done far worse than fake moon landings and plenty of people have taken part so i dont think its inconceivable that its a set up, after all thousands of germans killed innocent jews during a war because they recieved orders to do so, so when people were told to fake the landing for the sake of america, they did so. you dont have to agree with this but you cant say its inplausible, (why would you study it for 40 years if you believed it 100%, seems strange)...
daveqc1986 2 years ago
Or they could GO for the sake of America. Or if the Soviets had gotten the N1 working, the Soviets going to the moon for the glory of the USSR. Any political motivation to fake it, would also be political motivations to actually go. Now, if you can prove it was actually impossible to go, well, then that's different, but you have to PROVE that. I want your evidence, if you don't mind.
loperspest 2 years ago
Loperspest,
Well said.
In my view, (& I'm not alone), the motivation to go Was political. Oh, the engineers and scientists were in heaven of course - but at the time the promise was made in 1962, the US was woefully behind the Soviets in space tech. (or so we thought!)
By 65/66 the US had far surpassed the Soviets in space tech & they were basically showboating till the N-1 could be completed.
But it never flew, & even if it had, may not have made a difference.
The rest is history.
Feanor
10Feanor 2 years ago
No doubt about it, the motivation was definitely political. I often wish the Soviets had taken up Kennedy's offer, and they had gone to the moon together. That would have been something, eh?
loperspest 2 years ago
as far as 'evidence' goes, none of it would stand up in court except the moon rock, and moon rock has been found on earth so theres reasonable doubt in that area. I know lots of people with legitimate qualifications in science and they all say the same thing, nasa saying 'it happened' isnt proof . I want to believe it happened, why wouldent I? surely theres a telescope that can see a massive landing module and buggy on the moon? show me that and i will eat my hat with a side of humble pie.
daveqc1986 2 years ago
Plus, you cannot see six 3-meter descent stages or three 2-meter Rovers on the surface from here.
Is this your contention?
Go to my page and leave your regular addy.
Feanor
10Feanor 2 years ago
They won't post my entire reply ... sheesh!
10Feanor 2 years ago
I agree with LandingApollo and 10Feanor. There is a lot of solid proof. Ofcourse it depends on a persons 'background' if he accepts an scientific item as proof.
Once more, most of the hoaxpeople are not interested in science or any spaceprogram. It's all about distrust and problems with authority. About politics, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, you name it. Besides, 'conspiracies' are fun. Real life is boring.
Like it or not, but Americans landed on the moon in 1969.
dopje31857 2 years ago
Way to be original by using some studio's theme on the opening, you should be sued bro.
pikeymutt 2 years ago
well 'Landing Apollo' I admire your enthusiasm but i'm still not convinced, i've always wanted to know where the weapons of mass destruction are in iraq though, perhaps you could explain that aswell?
daveqc1986 2 years ago
i've read everything mate, then i read it all again. in response to
"it's up to YOU to prove what you think is true" this makes no sense, by making declarations of achievement like nasa did, THEY have to prove it to the world, they havent done so convincingly enough, in my opinion this is because it didnt happen. its like declaring i've broke the world record for the hundred metres and then saying "prove i didnt or accept it", neither of us can conclusively prove the other wrong. end of debate
daveqc1986 2 years ago
You are wrong Dave. The Moon landings are documented, scientific fact. They are considered a factual event by all nations, all official institutions and pretty much all of the world. Looking at this, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that it HASN'T occured. The Moon landings are already documented scientific fact. If you wish to challenge that you need to bring in some evidence that proves said accusations. This is not me saying these, these are the rules of logical debate.
LandingApollo 2 years ago
The proof for the landing is already there. Rocks bought back from the mission examined by scientists from nations all over the world and recognised for their uniqueness. While we are on the subject of radiation, can you provide some evidence that the environment outside of the Van Allen Belts would kill the Astronauts? Do you understand the impact of radiation on the Apollo Command Module?
LandingApollo 2 years ago
@LandingApollo
I can fully understand your frustration at some people. I was 15 when Apollo8 went round the moon and (think) I understood the physics even then. No internet back then but every morsel of information was chewed over by the world press and anyone even remotely connected with the project was dragged into a tv studio and their knowledge extracted by enthusiastic tv journalists.
Kids should always question, it is healthy, but gods sake learn something before screaming fake.
tpsossff 1 year ago
@LandingApollo
Also it facinates me that some even claim the Saturn rockets never existed. Went to America and watched 17 go up from just over three miles away. If they were able to fake that then landing on the moon must have been dead easy. LOL
tpsossff 1 year ago
@tpsossff
The Saturn-5 with its 5 F-1 motors is, to date, the most powerful moving object ever built. Generating nearly 8-million lbs of thrust at liftoff, it consumed 6 million gallons of fuel in just over 8 minutes while lofting 60 tons of payload into orbit.
It would rattle windows over 125 miles away, and the night-launch of Apollo 17 could be seen for over 300.
It is astonishing to think that some people still believe that this behemoth of engineering was somehow dummied.
Feanor
10Feanor 1 year ago
@10Feanor
Imagine what it was like from a very few miles. In the hours leading up to the event there was a lot of activity. When it came to the final few minutes everything fell silent bar a few claxon noises and the lights of vehicles speeding away from the pad. When those engines lit up and the rocket just sat there I thought for a moment that it was exploding. Damn, I never saw such fire reaching hundreds of feet behind. It was awsome, it was terrifying, ...........It was beautiful..
tpsossff 1 year ago
I don't believe you've read everything.
In fact why don't you tell me what you have read?
TheEntropyEpoch 2 years ago
yeah thats what i'll do, go through all the old books and docs and provide a nice list for someone who already has there next response ready to discredit whatever i've put down. (i would have loved to have read nasa's official account on discrediting hoax theories but for some reason they didnt end up releasing it) read below for my final take on this exhaustive subject. I know it must be unbearable when someone disagrees with you but thats life i'm afraid.
daveqc1986 2 years ago
like santa claus i think we wish the moon landings were real, but if you just think about it for a bit theres an overwhelming amount of inconsistencies throughout the entire nasa account of the apollo missions, put it this way, after all the rivalry with russia and millions of tax dollars were they really gonna turn around and say it cant be done?
daveqc1986 2 years ago
Dave,
I think it's fine that you have an opinion on this. On UTube opinions are like faith, re: "I have said thus-&-such, so I sure hope it's true!"
But I think it's essential to ask a question.
It's estimated that over 700,000 people worked on Apollo. The cost was 25 bln in the 60's. That's 3+ trillion now.
How come no one talked, & why spend that crippling amount of money on a hoax?
Why not just go to the Moon?
The USSR was effectively out of the Race by 66, so the point is ... what?
Feanor
10Feanor 2 years ago
I dont think everyone knew not by a long shot, and they obviously already spent the money seeing if it was achievable long before they realised it could not be done. the fact is you cant eliminate the possibilty they have been faked, If they had happened we would have seen some more conclusive evidence by now. for nasa to declare they achieved it put the burdon of proof on them not me. i believe what i see, and thats a bloke in a spacesuit with a flag, nothing more.
daveqc1986 2 years ago
As I said, you're entitled to think as you may.
Please explain to me what you mean by: "It could not be done."
What couldn't be done? The landings? The technology? The math?
10Feanor 2 years ago
firstly maths can always be done all you need is paper and a pencil. the technology of sending an object to the moon is obviously possible but having spacemen inside is where problems arise, once you leave our protective ozone belts radiation becomes immense, i dont believe with '69 technology they could come back completely unharmed let alone with perfect photographs. like i said before its up to nasa to prove me wrong not the other way round, my opinion relies on proof, yours relies on faith
daveqc1986 2 years ago
Hi Dave,
Listen ... ever have a X-Ray for something? Possibly an arm or leg - maybe a chest X-Ray?
Guess what?
You got more radiation than they did going to and from the Moon. They pretty much figured this out before they sent anyone up there.
Of the 48-k pics taken on or near the Moon, only about 1,200 are 'near-perfect'. The rest are mostly dogs. They only published the good ones.
Your assertions are pretty far out, so it's up to YOU to prove what you think is true.
Please read more.
Feanor
10Feanor 2 years ago
L.A.
Just a note to compliment you on a fine job - both in presentation as well as articulation.
I confess to being jaded by the very often less informed and defamatory members of the present '20's-Gen' - especially here in these UTube forums. It's refreshing to meet one who has done his homework (correctly) with panache and flair.
Keep it up.
Best,
Feanor
(ps - loved the Howard Shore touch!)
10Feanor 2 years ago
the great moon Hoax !
Just as 911 was a total cover up and scam, so was the Moon Landings
AutoYorn1 2 years ago
AutoYorn,
I'd be interested in knowing why you say that.
Feanor
10Feanor 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why do people who believe the moon landing is a hoax generally have poorer grammar? The same goes to those who believes that September 11 was an inside job. Is that an indication of something?
gregorov78 3 years ago
this video states that the engines "burned" for a" grand total of just over 5 minutes of firing".. Jarrah stated 6 minutes. Do the math and they burned for 5minutes38.5seconds. Jarrah figured it closer than this video did and the video commentary made fun of Jarrah's numbers. Get your facts straight. The lies(or plain stupidity) and misleads in this video makes is look more fake than the actual moon landing
DarrinHussey 3 years ago
Jarrah's six minutes is based on the amount of time a burn takes to enter Lunar Orbit which completely misunderstands how the engines were used.
LandingApollo 3 years ago
You are right that he is wrong. But you made so much fun of him that i couldnt help but to point out your mis-calculation. Hey in no "conspi...ther..ist" Im just curious How come the Apollo's engines didnt blow the moondust away on landing? You seem like you are the right person to ask
nirraddog 3 years ago
It did to a certain extent. Google as11-40-5921. Other factors include shutting the LM engine off before actually hitting the surface, and the engine being throttled down so it wasn't exerting that much pressure on the surface.
LandingApollo 3 years ago
After making fun of Jarrah and stating that he should "leave it to the experts " on the fourth burn that was for "11.5" seconds. The math i did makes it 21.5seconds. Probally doesnt really matter but the commentator emphasized Jarrah's miscalculations then makes his own dumbass mistake
nirraddog 3 years ago
You are indeed correct I have miscalculated. It doesn't change the fundamentals of the video though and the blatant fact that Jarrah is wrong. I may have made an honest make with the math, but Jarrah misunderstood the entire idea of a free return tracjectory.
LandingApollo 3 years ago
A scam they say.
That would likely make it the first multi-million dollar scam in the history of the us government in which they actually spent the money on paying for what they claimed they paid for.
With all the technology required paid for and assembled and brave trained men willing to die trying, why stop?
I am curious, where exactly do Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee and Ed White factor into the conspiracy theorists story?
What morbid ways do they weave them into their speculations?
JebusGeist 3 years ago
I'm sure the lawyers for New Line Cinema would be interested in your infringement of their music copyright from the "Lord of the Rings". As an artist, I find your robbery is disgusting. I'm sure you'll just say you're sampling but that's a crook's defense. Otherwise, nice video.
mrsooline 3 years ago
Actually, the music was written was written by John Williams, not New Line Cinema. I'm relatively sure that John Williams is not going to give a shit about a video, on top of the other fifty odd thousand videos on youtube.
LandingApollo 3 years ago
i think u dont know what ure talking about mate
alianscience 3 years ago
I think you lack the fundamental skills to type correctly. Admittingly, I'm right and you are wrong :)
GavinPiano 3 years ago
grats on winning the epeen contest brah!!
you are truly smart and all knowing
i cant wait to read the next post that's made just for the sake of argument!
zeyphr0505 3 years ago
It's OK. Ignore the rupture disks. They don't fit in with your argument, so lets just forget about them ;)
GavinPiano 3 years ago
"First of all... if the ox tank exploded it would of destroyed the craft to bits..."
-ItalianoAmericano
Nuff said.
zeyphr0505 3 years ago
Congratulations on not being able to read.
GavinPiano 3 years ago
1st: No it wouldn't as it was designed with rupture disks to prevent this happening
2nd: It pushed it off course a small amount yes, this was corrected with a small burn, unless you are seriously trying to suggest that the 'explosion' of the oxygen tanks was enough to offset the trajectory A13 was put on by the Saturn V?
3rd: They had submitted the report by June 1970 and changes were made on the A14 craft based on the report. Apollo budget was huge at this point thus changes were made quickly
GavinPiano 3 years ago
If the O2 tank exploded and " blew the craft to bits" why are the astronauts alive still? lol..
zeyphr0505 3 years ago
No-one said it "Blew the craft to bits". The oxygen tanks were designed with rupture disks to PREVENT an explosion taking out the entire craft.
GavinPiano 3 years ago
Of course the moon landings are a hoax, these astro-NOTS upon return said they never saw any stars. if you watch the post mission press conference you will see 3 guys scared shitless about lying to the world. They had the help of hidden teleprompters in their desk and looked guilty as sin. Micheal Collins looking at the other 'nots and nervously saying "i don't remember seeing any stars"
Gromitdog1 3 years ago
totally agreed! i saw that stupid conference too, with liars shits.
mssuck 3 years ago
More moon hoax bullshit.
barflewk 3 years ago
I dont even care to analyse the hoax analysis. those people dont even try to enjoy the posibilitys of human achivements. We can be great. Fuck bureaucruauseaty ;)
drnumlock 3 years ago
And by the by, don't make any plans for 2013.
Faustulus777 3 years ago
Right! Because the Mayan calendar ends at 2013! And there won't be anything left to make plans FOR!
JimmyFaust 3 years ago
Why would they need so much time? Has there been no technological benefit to the many times we've gone before? Are you saying that the delay is due to budget short-comings solely? From what I understand there are technical difficulties that are delaying the mission, unsolvable problems. If that is true, why should that be? We already a working craft in the Smithsonian... right?
Faustulus777 3 years ago
"We already a working craft in the Smithsonian... right?"
Um... No we don't. There are only 3 unused Saturn V Rockets left and the one at the Kennedy Space center in Florida is Rusted, Full of holes and had weeds growing inside of it not too long ago. I don't know the condition of the other 2, but I doubt they are *space ready*
pjwarez 3 years ago
the problem is the radiation, same problem with apollo, but it didn't stop them than, and if they felt like sending the astronauts there right now they can, they just wanna take care of that set back because they'd rather the astronauts not get messed up from it. not saying it had really bad effects on the apollo crew, it's just they want to stay there longer than they did back then, which means they need to work on better shielding for it
lagato321 3 years ago
Were not those materials used in the craft: electronics, rare metals, etc, more expensive then and less readily available? These materials are cheaper now and more readily available. My IPOD is more advance than anything they had on that craft. What's that cost? What's a modern computer cost: $2000.00 I'll donate it. If they could there with what they had in 1969, they darn sure could get there with my computer.
Faustulus777 3 years ago
Are you sure your computer is programmed for a manned landing on the Moon? That would be pretty cool.
kppttrst 3 years ago 2
Intelligent video. Well done.
taofledermaus 3 years ago 2
To tell you the truth, I don't care about this mumbo jumbo anymore. I am currently concentrating on renewable energy and how we can benefit from it in the future, if we make the change now.
Cr3ativity 3 years ago
Ha, Ha, Ha. Now geniuses, explain why it's taking NASA "Moon Experts" till 2020 to get us "back" on the moon with TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY! They did it in 1969 but they can't do it now? they even delayed an UNMANNED PROBE to the moon. Hello! We got ourselves a live one here!
Faustulus777 3 years ago
Faustulus777 "Now geniuses, explain why it's taking NASA "Moon Experts" till 2020 to get us "back" on the moon with TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY!"
NASA will spend $428 million next year on Project Constellation, that's less than 5% of Apollo's budget (~$10 billion per year, 2005 inflation adjusted).
So, if Apollo took 8 years at $10 billion a year and Project Constellation takes 12 years at $0.5 billion, that's 13.33 times better then Apollo.
Diamonddavej 3 years ago 2
Hahahaa... Yep... The moment I heard his claim, my answer was... but they never entered Lunar orbit !!!!!
Or.. As you put it, no lunar insertion burn required for free-return trajectory.
RoadRunnerLaser 3 years ago
I have an idea. Lets put everyone who dosent believe we landed on the moon on a rocket land them next to an apollo landing site show them the lem bottom and then throw them out with no suits. lol
dacling 3 years ago 3
i'd rather not throw th