1. you need some extra-tank and some extra-power to raise up lunar module BACK to moon orbit
2. the sun-light is too poor. !! when is no atmosphere the sun light is more powerfull than an ordinary earth day light (you need special glasses both for you and the camera, otherwise you will get an white movie, and blind persons
You can tell from tone & inflection in the 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.
Astronauts walking on lunar surface would NEVER be more than a heartbeat away from each other, and they would NEVER for any period of time allow the other to be out of sight.
ok... i will believe US astranout went to the moon. if NASA make a second landing to the moon, Apollo 2012... it is like we doing the experiment , one reading is not enough .. we must do at least triplicate reading, then our result is acceptable...
@kamal8525 - But that still wouldn't be good enough for hardcore moon hoax believers, they would say "Yes we can land on the moon NOW, but we didn't have the technology to do it in 1969!". Anyway, I've never climbed Mount Everest, so if I climb it in future, then I've achieved it. I don't need to climb it two more times to validate the fact that I'd climbed it before :) All the evidence shows man went to the moon 8 times and landed there 6 times! When the time right, we'll be back :)
this is just stupid, should never been allowed ro even be on the web. why would people turn religious after a fake moon landing like some of the 12 people whom landed on the moon did.
there are soo many proofs that we landed on the moon, and the did bring back over 250 pounds of rocks from the moon.
@dennisak47tag - Well yes, the religious claim doesn't hold up, but neither do any moon hoax claims. Moon hoax claims are often the result of ignorance, sometimes the result of deliberate lies (including within moon hoax documentaries), but never the result of facts or science. It's the same type of reasoning used by those claiming that the Space Shuttle and International Space Station is a hoax too (I know because I've argued with them here on youtube, and they're convinced they're right :)).
@MTMind2 It's not true. I don know where u get ur info from. but moon hoax claims are based on solid and scientific evidences. actually it's Nasa's claim which is based on nonsense.
what evidence have they got?
OSCAR NOMINATED MOON LANDING MOVIE?
OR CRAP MOON ROCKS?
OR FAKED PHOTOS?
OR CONFIRMATION OF SOME SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE SOLD THEIR SOUL TO MONEY?
I've examined most faked photo claims and NONE of them are valid. Provide a link about the photo you're convinced is faked.
For 40+ years, worldwide scientists in fields such as astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology etc ALL confirm Apollo evidence, none of them say it's fake.
Why is it that within 4 minutes of going onto Youtube one always comes across a video on A: A moon landing hoax, B: A 911 conspiracy, C: A video telling you why you should vote for Ron Paul in 2012?
@SplurtaBeats So says the talentless moron. Incapable of creating anything on his own so he attacks those who can and that which he does not understand calls it a conspiracy. Arrogance and stupidity is a bad combination.
@SplurtaBeats So says the talentless moron. Incapable of creating anything on his own so he attacks those who can and that which he does not understand calls it a conspiracy. Arrogance and stupidity is a bad combination.
@sammi0801 - There's a strange idea amongst some who act as if the 60s were the technology dark ages, or as if electricity had only been discovered a few years before. The technology of the 50s and 60s produced the first satellites, the first men and women in space, the first docking in space, the first probes to orbit the moon and other planets and some landed. Hence if all of that was possible in the 60s, and you had a rocket powerful enough, why would the moon be impossible? :-)
@sammi0801 - The cost and risk of going is massive, hence it was justified back then to beat the USSR (i.e. communism). So in fact, the science was secondary, the primary reason was political. Once they got there, the political goal was achieved, and with the USSR's moon program in trouble (N1 rocket failures), the USA couldn't justify the cost anymore. Still, there's growing interest in the moon for some nations and companies, so whilst it may not be apparent, the race is on again :)
@MTMind2 ok thats a important point you have made , but going back to Bush afew yrs back saying that america hopes to send a man back to the moon by 2020 , the way he said it makes you think 1. why in 10yrs time , 2. the way he said it was like its somthing its a 1st time achivment , , has it ever crossed ure mind that the whole moon landing was just to get one over the russians ?
@sammi0801 - 10 yrs because the tech would be completely new, at all levels. Whilst not the same, there are parallels with the ocean. In 1960, two divers in a mini-sub reached the lowest known point in the earth's ocean, the Mariana Trench, yet no-one has been back since. 52 yrs later, Richard Branson hopes to return in his mini-sub;
/watch?v=jQQ_C_CscEY
Yes, Apollo was to get one over the USSR, which is why it couldn't be faked, the USSR were too advanced to be fooled, much less 6 times :)
@bobcheese427 - That's a rather immature response coming from someone claiming to be an A-level student. Like I said, ask your physics teacher about gamma rays, and ask him/her if the earth's magnetic field blocks them (we are protected here on the surface by earth's atmosphere). When your teacher informs you that it doesn't, will that mean your teacher is an idiot too? Cosmic rays however are affected by magnetism, but I guess you're not interested in the difference that makes.
The flag waves because he shaked the flag as he put it in the ground, the stars wouldnt be shown because the camera couldnt observe highlights back in time.
@TheZollyz incorrect grammar, but I don't care about that. All your evidence is inconsistent you have no basis to argue any points I would make I wouldn't simply because you will probably use this video as your guide to try and win the argument
@RoqueHD I personal think they lied, as they did not suffer any cosmic radiation ( which comes from stars, such as the sun) they had no apparent protection from it on their craft.
@bobcheese427 The problem is that You just are guessing about the "cosmic radiation" and what protection they would have needed. Or, do You have any scientifcal documents supporting Your claim? Documents produced by the scientists actually measuring the radiation and knowing what materials are needed to make shield...
@YDDES No, cosmic radiation is made up of most gamma rays, of which our sun is the biggest source close to us, and lead is used to stop them as it is very dense. I do A-level physics I think I know what I'm taking about. If you study any sort of physics you'll know that. You obviously don't.
@bobcheese427 I know quite a bit about radiation, but not You, nor I have actually measured the radiation in space. The point is: NO ONE of the scientists (from several countries) who have actually done it, by satellites or sounding rockets, have stepped forward and said that the Apollo journeys must have been faked because of the radiation. Van Allen, for example, has stated that the hoax-believers claims about the radiation are nonsense.
@bobcheese427 - Gamma rays (and X rays) are not deflected nor blocked by magnetism (ask your physics teacher!), hence the earth's magnetic field offers no protection, meaning gamma rays levels in earth orbit are about the same as gamma ray levels on the moon. Therefore if astronauts can survive for months in earth orbit, including being out on spacewalks for up to 9 hours, then there's no reason they cannot do so on the moon. Cosmic rays are the biggest issue for space travel.
The idiot in the video tries to claim that shadows going in different directions proves there are "multiple light sources. There are 2 problems with that:
(1) Multiple light sources do NOT create shadows in different directions. They create multiple shadows from each object.
(2) If you enlarge the image, you see that when the idiot draws his lines across the shadows in the background, they don't even line up with the shadows.
@prosperomage The Mythbusters built a small-scale replica of the lunar landing site based on the photograph, using reflective sand similar to that found on the Moon, and a single light to represent the Sun. Next, they took a photo which was exactly the same as the NASA photo, including the differing shadows. The Mythbusters explained that the shadows were not parallel because of the way the light falls on the Moon’s natural topography.
The hubble telescope is designed to took at big objects very far away. The best the Hubble Telescope can do is see things on the moon 20-30 meters across, about ten times too large to see the Apollo equipment. Luckily a few nations have sent satelites to orbit the moon and have taken photos of the landing sites.
The Astronuts admit it's a hoax. You hear them commenting "Absolutely unreal". "One small step for man, one GIANT LEAP (of faith) for mankind". And has anyone seen the correlation between Apollo 11....the number ELEVEN...always comes up in things dealing with the new world order?
Do you say "fake" just because we haven't done it again? Following your reasoning, the descent in the Mariana Trench was fake, too...
The evidence of the Moon landings has been in the public domain for decades; videos and pictures taken, tracking telemetry from Earth, 60 scientific experiments left on the surface of the Moon and the data received from them, the 840 pounds of rocks and 6 foot long intact core tube samples brought back, etc. etc.
claptrap wtf did just say, utter nonsense the who NASA IS REPRESENTING, hasnt a clue how to answer the logical questions being asked to explain... WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON.
Go the the NASA site and look at the actual film magazines. None of the cross hairs disappear behind anything. Many of them have the black cross hair fuse with a bright background but they do NOT disappear completely.
Now download one of those images and see how little it takes with an editor to make the cross hair disappear completely.
How can anyone believe they spent $100 billion (1994 value) on the race to the moon and forgot to close the door when doing the flag scenes. LOL There were six successful landings and they made all these errors SIX times over four years.
All the stills camera shots were NOT perfect. Go to the NASA site and view the original magazines. Most pictures, though of scientific interest, were crap.
so basically, ever major guvment claim turns out to be false. which fits right in line with their stated goal: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
"conspiracy theorists point to evidence..." at what point does a conspiracy theory become a conspiracy fact? 10 facts? 50 facts? 1000 facts?
"On July 20, Armstrong and Aldrin landed... Their landing craft, Eagle, spent 21 hours and 31 minutes on the lunar surface while Collins orbited above in the command ship, Columbia." source Wikipedia: Apollo 11. If only two of the three astronauts in this mission were actually on the moon, who's taking the pictures?
@tonoklein The TV camera was stowed in an instrument pallet in the LM descent stage. When Armstrong was at the top of the ladder, he pulled a lanyard to swing open the pallet, which was hinged at the bottom. The TV camera, which was attached to it, also swung down. Buzz Aldrin then switched on the camera from the LM cabin. The camera was pointing at the ladder of the LM so that TV pictures of Armstrong's initial steps on the Moon could be relayed to the world.
Its all very confusing, does it matter if they did or didn't? I dont know
But maybe the guy in 3:55 was lit up because of light refelcting off the moon surface? If it was another light source above the camera then surely there would be another shadow behind him? and also you can't see it reflected in his visor (or maybe hes not looking up enough for the reflected light shine to be seen)
Im still not sure,
I just want the truth wheather they did or didn't.
@2charliegotguns2 - I know this was a while back but, that's the problem with these hoax claims. I assume you're not a photographic "expert" and yet you were able to explain why he was illuminated when the so-called expert in that film couldn't explain it. So, YOU beat the so-called expert, what does that say about that documentary?
Mythbusters cover that issue here;
/watch?v=RfKItI-cHPM&NR=1
It's worth watching the whole of that Mythbusters episode from here onwards :)
If they had got to the moon, by now they would havw been back a dozen times. There would be rocket batteries up there by now - both Russian and American
If they had got to the moon, by now they would havw been back a dozen times. There would be rocket batteries up there by now - bith Russian and American
The moon is no use as a launch site for missiles. An ICBM fired from Siberia will destroy New York about 25 to 30 minutes later. Launched from the moon it will take about 30 hours ... plenty of time to stop it.
There is no reason to go back, unmanned landers can do the job at a tiny fraction of the cost ... the taxpayer would not accept it anyway.
If you could jus hear the way these men were talking over the radio " I's Jus Playin Boss" what kind of Nasa affiliated person speaks like a confederate flag idiot
the makers of this piece of trash have twisted Gus's words, and made them fit the story they wish to tell.
Three men who died in that appolo capsule dies as a result of Nasa Hurying the program...GUS said"somone is going to die" because the effort was pushing to hard, and he knew it.
ANY piece of shit sais he was murderd, I would gladly take behind any building of his choice, and figure it out.
at 4:35 of video - that a hole nasa spokesman says theres too many questions to answer - total bull. I totally believe the moon landing was clearly a hoax - I think it all ties into the workings of the elite. (NWO --- ILLUMINATI) taking one closer step to world control. Please please look into ALEX JONES !!!!!! He doesn't speak on the moon landing that I know of however he prooves so many points and crooked facts of the government! Its all lucifarian.
I don´t know so much about space physics, but I think is very strange that the moon rust don´t rises "clouds" when the astronaut walks using little jumps. I guess the moon gravity is six times lower than on the earth, and the moon rust is formed by very tiny fragments of rock, the frgments are such tiny that Armstrong made an acurate footprint. It looks like cement.
@Leivinn20 "I think is very strange that the moon rust don´t rises "clouds"" The reason it would do that on earth is because it is the air that holds the tiny particles afloat. On the moon there is no air so any and EVERY thing will follow the same ballistic path straight down to the ground. Not strange at all, since it was filmed on the moon. It WOULD be strange if there were dust clouds, for that would be evidence it was filmed in an atmosphere. It clearly was filmed in a vacuum.
@Rob260259: Until the moment the evidences are: 1) Images of "Rover" without tracks. 2) Image of Lunar Module´s landing without landing evidence. 3) There aren´t photos of star, regardless how many times people asked for them on that then.4) All NASA answers are technicisms. The technicisms require tests. Although this don´t proves USA didn´t go the Moon, it´s necessary apply certain test, and wait for other missions of another countries (Russia, China, Japan, European Union, and so).
As asked earlier: Are you the kind of hoaxhead that doesn't understand things and stars shouting fake..? Thousands of reputable scientists, engineers, geochemists, physicists, geologists, astronomers and astronauts from across the globe support the landings on the Moon. Only some ignorant people who can't understand or comprehend things concerning Apollo think they are smarter than all those thousands of people. Sure Leivin, sure...
@Rob260259: Give me a opportunity, please: 1) NASA has photos showing tracks of Rover, and at same time, NASA shows photos without Rover tracks. 2) NASA has shown photos of Lunar Modulo without evidence of landing. No matter the technical argument, don´t you think it would be good thing make several tests about?. The science is universal process, NASA presented evidences to rest of world, the world has right to put these on test. I think: it´s need to wait for missions of other countries.
Mmmmm btw, can you remember who quoted the following ?
" NASA can´t show digital evidence if before doesn´t show the physical evidence, obviously, they need optical device like microscopy apparatus "
" If the stars are on the original pictures it isn`t necessary digital processing, using of magnifying glass or other kind of accurate optical device would be enough "
@jcgmed: excuse me, I mean: Of course, on the sixties already existed accurate optical devices for taking photos of the stars. To say: we found the stars means digital tech is a CONTRADICTION. ¿devices? - come on, just observe the telescopes coming from sixties.
@Leivinn20 " Still the optical devices have better resolution or definition than digital devices because they don´t need pixels and neither memory. The NASA defenders are making the role of stupid "
"Keep in mind, the stars shown on this video are pixelated. Don´t can be seen on the original image. Some one decided decided make fun of everybody. Even, it´s posible certain "stars" will appear in the long range due to damage of pictures "
It's pretty easy for you when, after answering a few comments like the previous, you've said and keep saying that everything is becoming too technical for you...yours is nothing else than a " now you see it, now you dont " game.
Btw, sorry if your previous comments are now too technical to you.
@jcgmed About slow motion simulating: the "highest tech" on the market is not the most recent tech, in other hand, the highest tech is on the laboratories of great private companies, universities, armies, but NASA is a exception, NASA has the most capable scientists of the world; they are a elite. therefore, if you say "on the sixties didn´t exist the VCR devices" and you are referring to NASA, your statement sounds very naive.
@Leivinn20 So the most skilled minds joined to create hugely amazing devices, technology and so on, in order to make seem the footages and pictures from Apollo missions like a cheap cartoon, and this is a naive argument. Clap clap clap.
@macpduff "Could explain the close link between Hollywood and Wash DC that started in the '60's" There's nothing to explain. When you are talking about conspiracy thoeries you merely need to imply things. The hoaxtard's goal is to cast doubt on the Apollo missions, they aren't out to prove anything (how could they? They have ZERO evidence, only speculation...
As an actual physics teacher, I showed this video right after it aired to my high school physics class, and without any prompting from me, THEY proceeded to rip into its scientific illiteracy and rampant error.
Now if a pack of 16 year old high school students could so easily refute it with honest science, whats the conspiraholics problem?
Well, Lundberg, who DESIGNED the Hasselblad camera they used is STUMPED by the photographs. Get back to us when one of your students designs a Hasselblad. Believe it or not, there are scientists with more learning than a high school physics teacher that believe we didn't go to the moon.
"Why are these scientists outnumbered by the Phds who say we DID go to the moon?"
What do you imply by noting that one group of scientists "outnumbers" an opposing group? You're implying that there is truth in numbers; so don't deny that you think that way. Now, knowing that you DO think that way, one wonders how it is you're unaware that some of the greatest discoveries in science proceeded from theories which were at first held by only a minority of scientists?
I've seen no question that wasnt based entirely on the ignorance and inexperience of the hoax pusher. You cant skip a decades education and then naively wonder why so much goes over your head.
If the professionals dont have any questions, the amateurs shouldnt either.
You talk like an elitist. What is it to you if people ask questions? It doesn't take a physicist to discover a hoax, only an investigator. It is a mechanical engineer (Lundberg) in this video who has questions---so the very video you're commenting on contradicts your claim: They're not physicists, not engineers."
"The REAL physicists have no problem with the landing or any science of it."
By definition then, whoever has questions is not a REAL scientist. One can go from "real" to "unreal" based on what one believes.
"If the professionals dont have any questions, the amateurs shouldnt either."
Once again, professionals DO have problems and unanswered questions with the landing and the science of it. You say there are no questions not based on ignorance because you haven't seen any---well, maybe you haven't seen all the questions. Is that possible?
Lundberg is not the star of a hoax video, he's the designer of the camera used to take such wonderful photos sans view-finder and with the camera mounted to one's chest. Try that on your next vacation. Good luck with your "drownings".
There are no unanswered questions about the hoax. I say that as an physicist who actually knows what he's talking about.
There ARE unanswered questions about the hoax gluttons. About why they're usually amateurs with no experience. About why they ignore all evidence thats not convenient.
Lundbergs camera? They took THOUSANDS of pics. Most of them were blurry and out of frame, so we only see the good ones. Thats hardly rocket science. But the stupidity of the hoax gets worse everyday.
Another unanswered question about the hoax gluttons would be why you think a chest-mounted camera is a match for the witnesses we have and you dont, the moonrocks we have and you dont, and the thousands of international engineers we have and you dont.
If you realy want to base a multi-trillion dollar "hoax" on a camera and ignore anything that makes you look stupid, well, good luck.
I'm going to need it for what? My beliefs are my own. I don't give three squirts what you believe. You've got issues if it bothers you what other believe in their own minds and talk about with like-minded friends. Why the hell are you watching a hoax video (and getting your panties in a bunch over it)? Go watch some NASA footage of the "real event" and drool over it. Give yourself a break, and the world too, from your juvenile crusade to change others' beliefs. If you're a teacher, you're scary.
The moonlanding is a matter of "fact." Its either a fact that we went or its a fact that we didnt. Therefore one of us is right and one of us is wrong. No compromise.
Now since there's evidence that says we went and garbage to say we didnt, you're likely the wrong one. And since I AM a teacher, I get to blame YOU for spreading ignorance and scientific illiteracy, going against everything I teach.
Therefore you will be stomped on and will like it.
Thank god you had such a well thought out and researched refute. I was worried you were at the end of your intellectual rope and were going to cave in, cut and pasting a corny predictable cliche while admitting your incompetence on anything relating to this topic. ;)
I AM a professional. Professional Physicist, Mathematician, and Radiological Tech. If that tells me that the "hoax" is logically dumb and riddled with error then its YOUR fault for being gullible, not mine for pointing it out.
@Believerification I don´t know so much about space physics, but I think is very strange that the moon rust don´t rises "clouds" when the astronaut walks using little jumps. I guess the moon gravity is six times lower than on the earth, and the moon rust is formed by very tiny fragments of rock, the fragments are such tiny that Armstrong made an accurate footprint. It looks like cement. Even the Moon Taxi neither made “dust clouds”.
The thing is, if you want to engage in a scientific discussion, you try to put forward a theory by rising questions on a matter and come up with new suggestions. You use cautious language - however what hoaxers do is saying : THIS IS FAKE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT... This is the way, you can challenge the landing, because your "facts" have yet to be examined and proven in agreement and if you act otherwise, no academic or nasa official will answer you.
Because too many people like you DONT "ask questions." They just jump right to a dumb conclusion without any analysis or thought of any kind. They believe what they want to and DONT ask for help, DONT look for information, and DONT listen to any answer.
A dork movie cannot be used as evidence for a dork idea. Lundberg has never been heard of since, has never accepted follow-up questions, has given no insight into his thought process. Thats not evidence.
Because this is too big to lie about, they tested the most common myths of the moon, and they even sent a signal to the moon that was reflected back to them, it was put there by the astronauts, theres no explaining tha, it explains itself.
Oh my! They sent a signal!? Hmmmm That totally proves we went to the moon. Come on! So why haven't they been back there since?? You think we'd be up there all the time. Good thing most of society is smart like you, this is why they all fell for the moon landing! LOL
Well obviously it does prove they went to the moon dumbass. There is a beacon which sends a signal back to the sending station. And no, we wouldnt be up there all the time dumbass, you think they have unlimited air? They are working on going to Mars or some other planet. Obviously its just too much for yer wee lil brain to take in.
1. you need some extra-tank and some extra-power to raise up lunar module BACK to moon orbit
2. the sun-light is too poor. !! when is no atmosphere the sun light is more powerfull than an ordinary earth day light (you need special glasses both for you and the camera, otherwise you will get an white movie, and blind persons
3. sorry for my poor english
aurelianchannel 3 days ago
the flag only moves when the astronauts move it and because its sped up to fool us
sbxlv1 6 days ago
why identical backgrounds ? maybe beacause its the f'n moon
sbxlv1 6 days ago
these are stupid questions. of course if you speed something up its going to go faster
sbxlv1 6 days ago
thats false ...!!!!
LANTACO11 1 week ago
You can tell from tone & inflection in the 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.
Astronauts walking on lunar surface would NEVER be more than a heartbeat away from each other, and they would NEVER for any period of time allow the other to be out of sight.
centurion180ad 1 week ago
Cant you see??? They had Photoshop back in the 60's!!!
ptlofts 2 weeks ago
not shocked at all..the gpv't is based on lies!!!
kazrules2007 2 weeks ago
ok... i will believe US astranout went to the moon. if NASA make a second landing to the moon, Apollo 2012... it is like we doing the experiment , one reading is not enough .. we must do at least triplicate reading, then our result is acceptable...
kamal8525 3 weeks ago
@kamal8525 - But that still wouldn't be good enough for hardcore moon hoax believers, they would say "Yes we can land on the moon NOW, but we didn't have the technology to do it in 1969!". Anyway, I've never climbed Mount Everest, so if I climb it in future, then I've achieved it. I don't need to climb it two more times to validate the fact that I'd climbed it before :) All the evidence shows man went to the moon 8 times and landed there 6 times! When the time right, we'll be back :)
MTMind2 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Neil Armstrong Oscar Nominee for the best actor! LOL
dennisak47tag 3 weeks ago
this is just stupid, should never been allowed ro even be on the web. why would people turn religious after a fake moon landing like some of the 12 people whom landed on the moon did.
there are soo many proofs that we landed on the moon, and the did bring back over 250 pounds of rocks from the moon.
Stensvold 4 weeks ago
@Stensvold hahaha your reasoning was one of the best I ever heard! we went to the moon because people who went there turned religious !!! hahaha
dennisak47tag 3 weeks ago
@dennisak47tag - Well yes, the religious claim doesn't hold up, but neither do any moon hoax claims. Moon hoax claims are often the result of ignorance, sometimes the result of deliberate lies (including within moon hoax documentaries), but never the result of facts or science. It's the same type of reasoning used by those claiming that the Space Shuttle and International Space Station is a hoax too (I know because I've argued with them here on youtube, and they're convinced they're right :)).
MTMind2 3 weeks ago
@MTMind2 It's not true. I don know where u get ur info from. but moon hoax claims are based on solid and scientific evidences. actually it's Nasa's claim which is based on nonsense.
what evidence have they got?
OSCAR NOMINATED MOON LANDING MOVIE?
OR CRAP MOON ROCKS?
OR FAKED PHOTOS?
OR CONFIRMATION OF SOME SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE SOLD THEIR SOUL TO MONEY?
dennisak47tag 2 weeks ago
@dennisak47tag - You proved the point I'm making.
2001 is nothing like the Apollo footage;
/watch?v=tNbeN_V_NNw (Part 1)
/watch?v=RK3Jnl6Zyhk (Part 2)
There are no 'crap' moon rocks, as shown here;
/watch?v=xNMnPkQZNjk
I've examined most faked photo claims and NONE of them are valid. Provide a link about the photo you're convinced is faked.
For 40+ years, worldwide scientists in fields such as astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology etc ALL confirm Apollo evidence, none of them say it's fake.
MTMind2 2 weeks ago
Why is it that within 4 minutes of going onto Youtube one always comes across a video on A: A moon landing hoax, B: A 911 conspiracy, C: A video telling you why you should vote for Ron Paul in 2012?
wz2001 1 month ago
@wz2001 Because everyone is now realising 9/11 was staged. And that ron paul seems legit, but he could be another puppet so don't get happy just yet.
SplurtaBeats 1 month ago
@SplurtaBeats Spoken like a true idiot.
wz2001 1 month ago
@wz2001 Says the retard that sits there building shit out of wood. Get out more
SplurtaBeats 1 month ago
@SplurtaBeats So says the talentless moron. Incapable of creating anything on his own so he attacks those who can and that which he does not understand calls it a conspiracy. Arrogance and stupidity is a bad combination.
wz2001 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SplurtaBeats So says the talentless moron. Incapable of creating anything on his own so he attacks those who can and that which he does not understand calls it a conspiracy. Arrogance and stupidity is a bad combination.
wz2001 1 month ago
@wz2001 because its important.
hearv888 4 weeks ago
im not convinced nasa landed on the moon , you just have to look at the technology aorund you back in the late 60s.
sammi0801 1 month ago
@sammi0801 - There's a strange idea amongst some who act as if the 60s were the technology dark ages, or as if electricity had only been discovered a few years before. The technology of the 50s and 60s produced the first satellites, the first men and women in space, the first docking in space, the first probes to orbit the moon and other planets and some landed. Hence if all of that was possible in the 60s, and you had a rocket powerful enough, why would the moon be impossible? :-)
MTMind2 1 month ago
@MTMind2 yes you have a point but why hasnt nasa been back ?
sammi0801 1 month ago
@sammi0801 - The cost and risk of going is massive, hence it was justified back then to beat the USSR (i.e. communism). So in fact, the science was secondary, the primary reason was political. Once they got there, the political goal was achieved, and with the USSR's moon program in trouble (N1 rocket failures), the USA couldn't justify the cost anymore. Still, there's growing interest in the moon for some nations and companies, so whilst it may not be apparent, the race is on again :)
MTMind2 1 month ago
@MTMind2 ok thats a important point you have made , but going back to Bush afew yrs back saying that america hopes to send a man back to the moon by 2020 , the way he said it makes you think 1. why in 10yrs time , 2. the way he said it was like its somthing its a 1st time achivment , , has it ever crossed ure mind that the whole moon landing was just to get one over the russians ?
sammi0801 1 month ago
@sammi0801 - 10 yrs because the tech would be completely new, at all levels. Whilst not the same, there are parallels with the ocean. In 1960, two divers in a mini-sub reached the lowest known point in the earth's ocean, the Mariana Trench, yet no-one has been back since. 52 yrs later, Richard Branson hopes to return in his mini-sub;
/watch?v=jQQ_C_CscEY
Yes, Apollo was to get one over the USSR, which is why it couldn't be faked, the USSR were too advanced to be fooled, much less 6 times :)
MTMind2 1 month ago
All of the following people below me are idiots..
bobcheese427 1 month ago
@bobcheese427 - That's a rather immature response coming from someone claiming to be an A-level student. Like I said, ask your physics teacher about gamma rays, and ask him/her if the earth's magnetic field blocks them (we are protected here on the surface by earth's atmosphere). When your teacher informs you that it doesn't, will that mean your teacher is an idiot too? Cosmic rays however are affected by magnetism, but I guess you're not interested in the difference that makes.
MTMind2 1 month ago
@MTMind2 Geez, it was a joke, get a life fat boi
bobcheese427 1 month ago
@bobcheese427 - Grow up kid :-)
MTMind2 1 month ago
The flag waves because he shaked the flag as he put it in the ground, the stars wouldnt be shown because the camera couldnt observe highlights back in time.
deathhellknight 2 months ago
Never happened.
abonao 2 months ago
i just lost some IQ points :( watching this
shave23 2 months ago
I want to belive, but there is just to many evidence
TheZollyz 2 months ago
@TheZollyz incorrect grammar, but I don't care about that. All your evidence is inconsistent you have no basis to argue any points I would make I wouldn't simply because you will probably use this video as your guide to try and win the argument
shave23 2 months ago
@TheZollyz If You understand the physics, technology and astronomy involved, there actually is no "evidence" that the lunar landings were faked.
On the contrary. For example, the films on the lunar surface couldn't have been made on Earth with the 60's movie technology.
YDDES 1 month ago
the flag was waving as there is no air resistance so when armstrong twisted the flag there was no air resistance to stop it.
ManUnited5207 3 months ago
@ManUnited5207 Air resistance would only slow it's decent. Gravity on the moon, although weaker, would still pull the flag downwards
bobcheese427 3 months ago
@bobcheese427 - The flag had a pole across the top to stop it being pulled downwards. You can see it in Apollo footage;
/watch?v=kJiv23TX_kw
And in a replica of the flag in this episode of MythBusters;
/watch?v=oCNV1hiKpLI (worth seeing from the start at /watch?v=mefEKqzq8cg)
And in the following documentary also debunking the moon hoax claims;
/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ
Radiation was not a problem for the duration they spent in space with the shielding they had for protection.
MTMind2 2 months ago
@MTMind2 well done bringing up an old comment.
bobcheese427 2 months ago
i never noticed it until now but it is all in slow motion like the video said. there is so much evidence to prove we diddent land it is unbelievable.
zxsk8zx 3 months ago
Well, open up Area 51 so people can get in there and prove their theories! What are you hiding?? I'll go with those who know they're lying!
shadowmanfan 3 months ago
They must to know that they don't have technology good enough to go to the moon, but fake it is just cheap propaganda, shame on NASA.
marcobrasilgv 5 months ago
@marcobrasilgv Shame on you for gullibly believing whatever a dork webpage told you, hook line and sinker
SpreadingtheMuse 4 months ago
Comment removed
bobcheese427 5 months ago 3
@bobcheese427 so it was a lie or not?
RoqueHD 3 months ago
@RoqueHD I personal think they lied, as they did not suffer any cosmic radiation ( which comes from stars, such as the sun) they had no apparent protection from it on their craft.
bobcheese427 3 months ago
@bobcheese427 The problem is that You just are guessing about the "cosmic radiation" and what protection they would have needed. Or, do You have any scientifcal documents supporting Your claim? Documents produced by the scientists actually measuring the radiation and knowing what materials are needed to make shield...
YDDES 1 month ago
@YDDES No, cosmic radiation is made up of most gamma rays, of which our sun is the biggest source close to us, and lead is used to stop them as it is very dense. I do A-level physics I think I know what I'm taking about. If you study any sort of physics you'll know that. You obviously don't.
bobcheese427 1 month ago
@bobcheese427 I know quite a bit about radiation, but not You, nor I have actually measured the radiation in space. The point is: NO ONE of the scientists (from several countries) who have actually done it, by satellites or sounding rockets, have stepped forward and said that the Apollo journeys must have been faked because of the radiation. Van Allen, for example, has stated that the hoax-believers claims about the radiation are nonsense.
YDDES 1 month ago
@bobcheese427 - Gamma rays (and X rays) are not deflected nor blocked by magnetism (ask your physics teacher!), hence the earth's magnetic field offers no protection, meaning gamma rays levels in earth orbit are about the same as gamma ray levels on the moon. Therefore if astronauts can survive for months in earth orbit, including being out on spacewalks for up to 9 hours, then there's no reason they cannot do so on the moon. Cosmic rays are the biggest issue for space travel.
MTMind2 1 month ago
just ask a simple question? why is the flag waiving?
macoromero 5 months ago
@macoromero -- The flag? Are you serious? There are no videos with evidence of the flag "waving" without an astronaut moving it.
prosperomage 3 months ago
@prosperomage common sense... i mean moving by the wind,
macoromero 3 months ago
@macoromero -- What about "common sense" and "moving by the wind"??
There are no videos that show the flag being moved like the wind was blowing on it.
In every video of the flag moving, the astronaut is twisting the top of the pole into the bottom of the pole.
Have you even looked at them? Or are you just spouting some silly nonsense that you heard?
prosperomage 3 months ago
@macoromero just like a cloth waving in the swimming pool? iunno
startingsprinter 3 months ago
@startingsprinter numb nuts.
macoromero 3 months ago
And how about the shadows?
The idiot in the video tries to claim that shadows going in different directions proves there are "multiple light sources. There are 2 problems with that:
(1) Multiple light sources do NOT create shadows in different directions. They create multiple shadows from each object.
(2) If you enlarge the image, you see that when the idiot draws his lines across the shadows in the background, they don't even line up with the shadows.
Why is the video guy lying to you?
prosperomage 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@prosperomage The Mythbusters built a small-scale replica of the lunar landing site based on the photograph, using reflective sand similar to that found on the Moon, and a single light to represent the Sun. Next, they took a photo which was exactly the same as the NASA photo, including the differing shadows. The Mythbusters explained that the shadows were not parallel because of the way the light falls on the Moon’s natural topography.
ManUnited5207 3 months ago
f*cked all of the answers to these quetions can be answered by mythbusters!!!
MoSenDe1 5 months ago
were is the money they "spend" on this missions
amosatara 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if we went to the moon they would have used the Hubble telescope to show what they left behind.
kenmc90000 6 months ago
if we went to the moon they would have used the hubble telescope to show what they left behind
kenmc90000 6 months ago
The hubble telescope is designed to took at big objects very far away. The best the Hubble Telescope can do is see things on the moon 20-30 meters across, about ten times too large to see the Apollo equipment. Luckily a few nations have sent satelites to orbit the moon and have taken photos of the landing sites.
Spindry96 5 months ago
The Astronuts admit it's a hoax. You hear them commenting "Absolutely unreal". "One small step for man, one GIANT LEAP (of faith) for mankind". And has anyone seen the correlation between Apollo 11....the number ELEVEN...always comes up in things dealing with the new world order?
xcaliber69 7 months ago
ok if they went in that year whit that tecnology.
why they havnt go again wen thers alot more tecnology?
i say its FAKE they didnt went to the mooon
locoporgolf 7 months ago
@locoporgolf
Do you say "fake" just because we haven't done it again? Following your reasoning, the descent in the Mariana Trench was fake, too...
The evidence of the Moon landings has been in the public domain for decades; videos and pictures taken, tracking telemetry from Earth, 60 scientific experiments left on the surface of the Moon and the data received from them, the 840 pounds of rocks and 6 foot long intact core tube samples brought back, etc. etc.
Rob260259 5 months ago
@locoporgolf I think they lied too, but the reason they are not going again is because the President has cut the funding for the next moon mission
bobcheese427 3 months ago
claptrap wtf did just say, utter nonsense the who NASA IS REPRESENTING, hasnt a clue how to answer the logical questions being asked to explain... WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON.
jonescool1fly 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
is it possible to fool all people with that !!!!!!!! I don't know what to believe
rayed202 7 months ago
Go the the NASA site and look at the actual film magazines. None of the cross hairs disappear behind anything. Many of them have the black cross hair fuse with a bright background but they do NOT disappear completely.
Now download one of those images and see how little it takes with an editor to make the cross hair disappear completely.
TheSpiritof1969 8 months ago
How can anyone believe they spent $100 billion (1994 value) on the race to the moon and forgot to close the door when doing the flag scenes. LOL There were six successful landings and they made all these errors SIX times over four years.
All the stills camera shots were NOT perfect. Go to the NASA site and view the original magazines. Most pictures, though of scientific interest, were crap.
TheSpiritof1969 8 months ago
so basically, ever major guvment claim turns out to be false. which fits right in line with their stated goal: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
-- William Casey, CIA Director
tonoklein 8 months ago
"conspiracy theorists point to evidence..." at what point does a conspiracy theory become a conspiracy fact? 10 facts? 50 facts? 1000 facts?
"On July 20, Armstrong and Aldrin landed... Their landing craft, Eagle, spent 21 hours and 31 minutes on the lunar surface while Collins orbited above in the command ship, Columbia." source Wikipedia: Apollo 11. If only two of the three astronauts in this mission were actually on the moon, who's taking the pictures?
tonoklein 8 months ago
@tonoklein The TV camera was stowed in an instrument pallet in the LM descent stage. When Armstrong was at the top of the ladder, he pulled a lanyard to swing open the pallet, which was hinged at the bottom. The TV camera, which was attached to it, also swung down. Buzz Aldrin then switched on the camera from the LM cabin. The camera was pointing at the ladder of the LM so that TV pictures of Armstrong's initial steps on the Moon could be relayed to the world.
CHSarahBs 8 months ago
@CHSarahBs thank you.
tonoklein 7 months ago
@tonoklein My pleasure
CHSarahBs 7 months ago
Its all very confusing, does it matter if they did or didn't? I dont know
But maybe the guy in 3:55 was lit up because of light refelcting off the moon surface? If it was another light source above the camera then surely there would be another shadow behind him? and also you can't see it reflected in his visor (or maybe hes not looking up enough for the reflected light shine to be seen)
Im still not sure,
I just want the truth wheather they did or didn't.
Im just not that fussed to be honest
2charliegotguns2 10 months ago
@2charliegotguns2 - I know this was a while back but, that's the problem with these hoax claims. I assume you're not a photographic "expert" and yet you were able to explain why he was illuminated when the so-called expert in that film couldn't explain it. So, YOU beat the so-called expert, what does that say about that documentary?
Mythbusters cover that issue here;
/watch?v=RfKItI-cHPM&NR=1
It's worth watching the whole of that Mythbusters episode from here onwards :)
/watch?v=mefEKqzq8cg
MTMind2 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If they had got to the moon, by now they would havw been back a dozen times. There would be rocket batteries up there by now - both Russian and American
Lee7312 10 months ago
If they had got to the moon, by now they would havw been back a dozen times. There would be rocket batteries up there by now - bith Russian and American
Lee7312 10 months ago
@Lee7312
The moon is no use as a launch site for missiles. An ICBM fired from Siberia will destroy New York about 25 to 30 minutes later. Launched from the moon it will take about 30 hours ... plenty of time to stop it.
There is no reason to go back, unmanned landers can do the job at a tiny fraction of the cost ... the taxpayer would not accept it anyway.
TheSpiritof1969 8 months ago
The ratings for the video speaks for itself.
36 out of 41 people know it was all bullshit.
5 out of 41 are shill fools.
kaderoder 11 months ago
If you could jus hear the way these men were talking over the radio " I's Jus Playin Boss" what kind of Nasa affiliated person speaks like a confederate flag idiot
MizzYungMacMar 11 months ago
The nasa guy doesnt answer the question. He just says the question again in a different manner.
SollyT91 1 year ago
The failures during that test where documented, explaind, and FIXED.
This movie is a result of the lowest assumptions, and they arent refuted in a way that gives Nasa credit.
Other documentarys cover Nasa's side VERY well.
and as for pictures of astronauts within shadows...THE MOON IS A LIGHT GREY!
This means that the sun is reflected from the surface, and lights up thier suits...dont believe me? Look how bright the moon is at night.
popceed 1 year ago
the makers of this piece of trash have twisted Gus's words, and made them fit the story they wish to tell.
Three men who died in that appolo capsule dies as a result of Nasa Hurying the program...GUS said"somone is going to die" because the effort was pushing to hard, and he knew it.
ANY piece of shit sais he was murderd, I would gladly take behind any building of his choice, and figure it out.
SHAME on you
popceed 1 year ago
@ChrisCR1 what is there, i cant figure out
DINDENTS 1 year ago
This film is for gullible people. It looks like it worked. Allota' naive people bought into this crap. sad....
Tweekerhead 1 year ago
I WAS 17 WHEN THIS SUPPOSEDLY "HAPPENED"...I NEVER BELIEVED IT...MATTER OF FACT WE CAN'T DO IT NOW!!!
kowbellekowbelle 1 year ago
LMFAO the NASA dude is all filler, no killer!
UgLyKoerner 1 year ago
at 4:35 of video - that a hole nasa spokesman says theres too many questions to answer - total bull. I totally believe the moon landing was clearly a hoax - I think it all ties into the workings of the elite. (NWO --- ILLUMINATI) taking one closer step to world control. Please please look into ALEX JONES !!!!!! He doesn't speak on the moon landing that I know of however he prooves so many points and crooked facts of the government! Its all lucifarian.
shredmetalmike 1 year ago
The fact that the flag flaps on the moon where there's no atmosphere means that Bill Kaysing is a fucking idiot.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
Even the MoonTaxi don´t make “dust clouds”.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
I don´t know so much about space physics, but I think is very strange that the moon rust don´t rises "clouds" when the astronaut walks using little jumps. I guess the moon gravity is six times lower than on the earth, and the moon rust is formed by very tiny fragments of rock, the frgments are such tiny that Armstrong made an acurate footprint. It looks like cement.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 "I think is very strange that the moon rust don´t rises "clouds"" The reason it would do that on earth is because it is the air that holds the tiny particles afloat. On the moon there is no air so any and EVERY thing will follow the same ballistic path straight down to the ground. Not strange at all, since it was filmed on the moon. It WOULD be strange if there were dust clouds, for that would be evidence it was filmed in an atmosphere. It clearly was filmed in a vacuum.
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
@Leivinn20
"I don't know so much about space physics"
No need to tell us, Leivinn. It's obvious.
Do some research, buy a few books about the Apollo project and tell us what you think of it.
My grandfather shouted "fake!" when I showed him my first cellphone some years ago. Get the message?
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259: Until the moment the evidences are: 1) Images of "Rover" without tracks. 2) Image of Lunar Module´s landing without landing evidence. 3) There aren´t photos of star, regardless how many times people asked for them on that then.4) All NASA answers are technicisms. The technicisms require tests. Although this don´t proves USA didn´t go the Moon, it´s necessary apply certain test, and wait for other missions of another countries (Russia, China, Japan, European Union, and so).
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20
As asked earlier: Are you the kind of hoaxhead that doesn't understand things and stars shouting fake..? Thousands of reputable scientists, engineers, geochemists, physicists, geologists, astronomers and astronauts from across the globe support the landings on the Moon. Only some ignorant people who can't understand or comprehend things concerning Apollo think they are smarter than all those thousands of people. Sure Leivin, sure...
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259: Give me a opportunity, please: 1) NASA has photos showing tracks of Rover, and at same time, NASA shows photos without Rover tracks. 2) NASA has shown photos of Lunar Modulo without evidence of landing. No matter the technical argument, don´t you think it would be good thing make several tests about?. The science is universal process, NASA presented evidences to rest of world, the world has right to put these on test. I think: it´s need to wait for missions of other countries.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 Wow, quite interesting.
Mmmmm btw, can you remember who quoted the following ?
" NASA can´t show digital evidence if before doesn´t show the physical evidence, obviously, they need optical device like microscopy apparatus "
" If the stars are on the original pictures it isn`t necessary digital processing, using of magnifying glass or other kind of accurate optical device would be enough "
jcgmed 1 year ago
Comment removed
Leivinn20 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jcgmed: excuse me, I mean: Of course, on the sixties already existed accurate optical devices for taking photos of the stars. To say: we found the stars means digital tech is a CONTRADICTION. ¿devices? - come on, just observe the telescopes coming from sixties.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Leivinn20 " Still the optical devices have better resolution or definition than digital devices because they don´t need pixels and neither memory. The NASA defenders are making the role of stupid "
"Keep in mind, the stars shown on this video are pixelated. Don´t can be seen on the original image. Some one decided decided make fun of everybody. Even, it´s posible certain "stars" will appear in the long range due to damage of pictures "
jcgmed 1 year ago
@Leivinn20
It's pretty easy for you when, after answering a few comments like the previous, you've said and keep saying that everything is becoming too technical for you...yours is nothing else than a " now you see it, now you dont " game.
Btw, sorry if your previous comments are now too technical to you.
jcgmed 1 year ago
@jcgmed About slow motion simulating: the "highest tech" on the market is not the most recent tech, in other hand, the highest tech is on the laboratories of great private companies, universities, armies, but NASA is a exception, NASA has the most capable scientists of the world; they are a elite. therefore, if you say "on the sixties didn´t exist the VCR devices" and you are referring to NASA, your statement sounds very naive.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
@Leivinn20 So the most skilled minds joined to create hugely amazing devices, technology and so on, in order to make seem the footages and pictures from Apollo missions like a cheap cartoon, and this is a naive argument. Clap clap clap.
jcgmed 1 year ago 8
@jcgmed yep
DINDENTS 1 year ago
@Rob260259 : by the way, I am not saying the Endeavour is false.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
Could explain the close link between Hollywood and Wash DC that started in the '60's
macpduff 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@macpduff "Could explain the close link between Hollywood and Wash DC that started in the '60's" There's nothing to explain. When you are talking about conspiracy thoeries you merely need to imply things. The hoaxtard's goal is to cast doubt on the Apollo missions, they aren't out to prove anything (how could they? They have ZERO evidence, only speculation...
SirMildredPierce 1 year ago
As an actual physics teacher, I showed this video right after it aired to my high school physics class, and without any prompting from me, THEY proceeded to rip into its scientific illiteracy and rampant error.
Now if a pack of 16 year old high school students could so easily refute it with honest science, whats the conspiraholics problem?
An actual science education perhaps? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Well, Lundberg, who DESIGNED the Hasselblad camera they used is STUMPED by the photographs. Get back to us when one of your students designs a Hasselblad. Believe it or not, there are scientists with more learning than a high school physics teacher that believe we didn't go to the moon.
Believerification 2 years ago
So why do I always have to hear about these "scientists" from ignorant amatuers?
Why are these scientists outnumbered by the Phds who say we DID go to the moon?
Why is it that no matter what the hoax claim, I can find a refute for it somewhere?
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Maybe because you judge everyone who disagrees with you to be an "ignorant amateur" (though I spell the phrase correctly and you do not, teacher).
Truth is not adjudged by vote.
Because any explanation is more satisfying than an unanswered question.
Believerification 2 years ago
"vote"
I wouldnt ask for a vote. I'd ask that the question be answered by people qualified to answer it. And in the hoax realm, that does not happen.
Who do you think all these hoax pushers are? They're not physicists, not engineers.
Bill Kaysing was an english major and Sibrel is a failed journalist. Of what use then is their opinion on ANYTHING technical?
The REAL physicists have no problem with the landing or any science of it.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Why are these scientists outnumbered by the Phds who say we DID go to the moon?"
What do you imply by noting that one group of scientists "outnumbers" an opposing group? You're implying that there is truth in numbers; so don't deny that you think that way. Now, knowing that you DO think that way, one wonders how it is you're unaware that some of the greatest discoveries in science proceeded from theories which were at first held by only a minority of scientists?
Believerification 2 years ago
And there are no "unanswered" questions.
I've seen no question that wasnt based entirely on the ignorance and inexperience of the hoax pusher. You cant skip a decades education and then naively wonder why so much goes over your head.
If the professionals dont have any questions, the amateurs shouldnt either.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
You talk like an elitist. What is it to you if people ask questions? It doesn't take a physicist to discover a hoax, only an investigator. It is a mechanical engineer (Lundberg) in this video who has questions---so the very video you're commenting on contradicts your claim: They're not physicists, not engineers."
"The REAL physicists have no problem with the landing or any science of it."
Believerification 2 years ago
By definition then, whoever has questions is not a REAL scientist. One can go from "real" to "unreal" based on what one believes.
"If the professionals dont have any questions, the amateurs shouldnt either."
Once again, professionals DO have problems and unanswered questions with the landing and the science of it. You say there are no questions not based on ignorance because you haven't seen any---well, maybe you haven't seen all the questions. Is that possible?
Believerification 2 years ago
Being a star of a hoax video does not make one a "professional."
Why does lundberg appear only here?
Why is he a minority of one?
Why is every other engineer against him?
Why are his claims refuted even now?
I can DROWN both him and you in follow-up questions that this movie never answers. He's an idiot and so are you if you believe him.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"And there are no "unanswered" questions."
You sure have a lot of questions.
Lundberg is not the star of a hoax video, he's the designer of the camera used to take such wonderful photos sans view-finder and with the camera mounted to one's chest. Try that on your next vacation. Good luck with your "drownings".
Believerification 2 years ago
There are no unanswered questions about the hoax. I say that as an physicist who actually knows what he's talking about.
There ARE unanswered questions about the hoax gluttons. About why they're usually amateurs with no experience. About why they ignore all evidence thats not convenient.
Lundbergs camera? They took THOUSANDS of pics. Most of them were blurry and out of frame, so we only see the good ones. Thats hardly rocket science. But the stupidity of the hoax gets worse everyday.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Another unanswered question about the hoax gluttons would be why you think a chest-mounted camera is a match for the witnesses we have and you dont, the moonrocks we have and you dont, and the thousands of international engineers we have and you dont.
If you realy want to base a multi-trillion dollar "hoax" on a camera and ignore anything that makes you look stupid, well, good luck.
You're going to need it.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
I'm going to need it for what? My beliefs are my own. I don't give three squirts what you believe. You've got issues if it bothers you what other believe in their own minds and talk about with like-minded friends. Why the hell are you watching a hoax video (and getting your panties in a bunch over it)? Go watch some NASA footage of the "real event" and drool over it. Give yourself a break, and the world too, from your juvenile crusade to change others' beliefs. If you're a teacher, you're scary.
Believerification 2 years ago
Screw "belief."
The moonlanding is a matter of "fact." Its either a fact that we went or its a fact that we didnt. Therefore one of us is right and one of us is wrong. No compromise.
Now since there's evidence that says we went and garbage to say we didnt, you're likely the wrong one. And since I AM a teacher, I get to blame YOU for spreading ignorance and scientific illiteracy, going against everything I teach.
Therefore you will be stomped on and will like it.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Seek professional help.
Believerification 2 years ago
Thank god you had such a well thought out and researched refute. I was worried you were at the end of your intellectual rope and were going to cave in, cut and pasting a corny predictable cliche while admitting your incompetence on anything relating to this topic. ;)
I AM a professional. Professional Physicist, Mathematician, and Radiological Tech. If that tells me that the "hoax" is logically dumb and riddled with error then its YOUR fault for being gullible, not mine for pointing it out.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
@Believerification I don´t know so much about space physics, but I think is very strange that the moon rust don´t rises "clouds" when the astronaut walks using little jumps. I guess the moon gravity is six times lower than on the earth, and the moon rust is formed by very tiny fragments of rock, the fragments are such tiny that Armstrong made an accurate footprint. It looks like cement. Even the Moon Taxi neither made “dust clouds”.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
The thing is, if you want to engage in a scientific discussion, you try to put forward a theory by rising questions on a matter and come up with new suggestions. You use cautious language - however what hoaxers do is saying : THIS IS FAKE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT... This is the way, you can challenge the landing, because your "facts" have yet to be examined and proven in agreement and if you act otherwise, no academic or nasa official will answer you.
Fr4nkWh1te 1 year ago
"ask questions"
Because too many people like you DONT "ask questions." They just jump right to a dumb conclusion without any analysis or thought of any kind. They believe what they want to and DONT ask for help, DONT look for information, and DONT listen to any answer.
A dork movie cannot be used as evidence for a dork idea. Lundberg has never been heard of since, has never accepted follow-up questions, has given no insight into his thought process. Thats not evidence.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
but we don't know that it's faked.
xboxnut137 2 years ago
nasa is a liar but the reason the astronaut is lit up is because the light is reflecting off the moons surface
dillhalo3 2 years ago
so in the vacuum of space y is the flag waving??
narutotube1996 2 years ago
oh nevermind the fact you cant see any of it with any telescope
alltops 2 years ago
i dnt believe on nasa....if theyre saying man on moon is true...then do it again...once more man on moon 2009...
now we have the almost perfect technologies...WE DARE YOU NASA!!!
meknoyTV 2 years ago
nasa=liers=billions of people believe=money for nasa
FreebieJeebies123 2 years ago
fuck off we dont care about him hes shit now
sdthird10 2 years ago
lol that nasa guy doesnt answer one single question!
essenhohoho 2 years ago 34
@essenhohoho every nasa people
jajabee123456789 1 year ago
@essenhohoho Don't answer the foolish arguments of fools, or you will become as foolish as they are.
jackbliss 6 months ago
Were the rovers tires filled with air?
vladika07 2 years ago
nope, they are all a specific type of rubber
nicegaara12345 2 years ago
holy crap those tire would exploded upon entering space. OMG
alltops 2 years ago
DUN T5ALK SO MUCH,OPEN DIS VIDEO..IT WILL EXPLAIN EVERYTHING..man landed on the moon..
syazminasyrafff 2 years ago
brilliant
Zvone091 2 years ago
oh jesus, so they might or might not have landed on the moon, what's the big deal?
xboxnut137 2 years ago
grand theft grand larceny national fraud treason. conspiracy to commit fraud etc etc
alltops 2 years ago
grand theft what? the first is incomplete.
seriously, even if it is faked, it hurts no one.
xboxnut137 2 years ago
when i was a kid, i always thought the rover would take wicked jumps and i was disappointed and surprised that it didn't.
mard420 2 years ago 2
NASA guy gave poor arguments, if any argument at all, look at his eyes, the way he moves them, he is lying.
Globox822 2 years ago 3
biggest fake ever
Globox822 2 years ago 2
why would they want to go back to the moon?,,, you only have to go to L,A to see tons of aliens heheheheh
reemo1967 2 years ago
Because the very small camera was mounted to the bottom of the craft. (Reply to munichlady's comment)
Madgefilmsinc 3 years ago
fuck.....what's the real truth?
lordon18 3 years ago
Because this is too big to lie about, they tested the most common myths of the moon, and they even sent a signal to the moon that was reflected back to them, it was put there by the astronauts, theres no explaining tha, it explains itself.
tacticalreaper666 3 years ago
Oh my! They sent a signal!? Hmmmm That totally proves we went to the moon. Come on! So why haven't they been back there since?? You think we'd be up there all the time. Good thing most of society is smart like you, this is why they all fell for the moon landing! LOL
RuthOlivia1129 3 years ago
Well obviously it does prove they went to the moon dumbass. There is a beacon which sends a signal back to the sending station. And no, we wouldnt be up there all the time dumbass, you think they have unlimited air? They are working on going to Mars or some other planet. Obviously its just too much for yer wee lil brain to take in.
tacticalreaper666 3 years ago
You're funny :o)
RuthOlivia1129 3 years ago
its on mythbusters, they tested like, everything, they DID land on the moon
tacticalreaper666 3 years ago
So the guys on Mythbusters landed on the moon too? The government constantly lies to us, why wouldn't they about this?
RuthOlivia1129 3 years ago 4
lol!!
TRUDOWNSOUTH 3 years ago
I never said that now did I, if you knew anything you would know they went to the moon, and no, Obama isnt lying about anything
tacticalreaper666 3 years ago