Awww Shane, why will NASA just not send a little robot car up to the Moon and let it ride around and video tape the Moon landing sites? Heck...They sent one all the way to Mars, and they could drive that one around from Earth, so...the moon should be a breeze, Right?
Japan took pics of the LEMs left on the moon a couple years ago, and it didnt solve anything. Hoax believers are based on emotion and paranoia, not any responsible fact.
@SpreadingtheMuse WHAT? Where are these pictures, and I said some videos. Emotion and paranoia....Huh? Why doesn't NASA just launch another moon landing, just for old time sakes?
"old time sakes" has a price tag of over $100 billion. YOU ask them to fork it over ;)
NASA was making a new trip, but Obama cancelled it last year due to the budget mess. Meanwhile, the Japan pics are nearly everywhere. They were on CNN, the newspapers, and now are right here on youtube. Search for, or google for "LRO Japan Pics." That ought to find them.
@SpreadingtheMuse Are you serious? You really believe that's pictures of the landing sites? It's just the same old FAKE sites taken from area 51. How convenient for you and all the others that still believe NASA put a man on the moon that they were going to do it again last year and Obama cancelled it. There's no way a trip to the moon costs that much, that's just another excuse for them NOT to do it.
@ironman197268 I'm going to believe those are the landing sites before I believe a hoaxaholic newb, yes. Sorry charlie ;) See those pics were released all over the world, and if there was ANYTHING wrong with them, we would have heard from some photographer who actually works for a living and knew what he was talking about, not a dork who cut and pastes "AREA 51" pretending to sound smart.
You dont watch the news? We're A TRILLION DOLLARS IN THE HOLE. No money for moon.
@SpreadingtheMuse You're itching for some attention with that word "newb" aren't you? So NASA was going to do a man to the moon trip and Obama said NO, we can't afford it. I guess NASA doesn't watch the news either, other wise they would know the USA is A TRILLION DOLLARS IN THE HOLE, which btw it's over 10 trillion dollars in the hole. Do you watch the news? I had no idea those pics were released world wide, cause if they just make it to the Internet, they are only local right?
"newb" is the PERFECT description. What are you dumb enough to think hoax pushers are? Engineers? Rocket scientists? They're JANITORS. I know cause I ask them and they admit it. They know dick about science, dick about apollo, but they cut and paste dufus webpages pretending to be clever.
Japans LRO apollo pics were given to anyone who asked for them. I saw them on CNN and international news and print media etc etc. Not a soul in any country called them fake.
@SpreadingtheMuse Man your English and sentence structure is horrible!! You really traveled the world and asked all the known moon hoaxers in the world what their occupation is, and the results of ALL of them were, "I'm a JANITOR" Really? Another thing you said, "not a soul in any country called them fake" did you ask all these souls if they called them fake or not? Yours and Shane's moon landing arguments are SUPER weak, and lack easily obtainable, and obvious evidence.
@ironman197268 If one of the qualifications is, "be able to learn a simple thing when it's explained to you," then you have shown to be very unqualified.
I ask every hoaxer who I meet on these boards what their occupation is. Whats so tough about that? Whats YOUR occupation? LOL See that wasnt hard. ;)
I've asked uncountable hoax idiots that same question and the answer is always ridiculous. Its their fault for being bluffing idiots, not mine for calling them on it.
As for the satellite pics if there is someone who called them fake THEN POINT THEM OUT. Either they exist or they dont. Put up or shut up
Could you provide examples of my "poor sentence structure?" Or can we put your claim down as just another conveniently ignorant desperate whine that hoax believers are famous for? ;)
BTW, since you're one of those young-earth nuts, I'm infinitely more justified in saying "Your knowledge of rudimentary 8th grade science is horrible," and you know it ;)
@SpreadingtheMuse Just read your sentences, and you wish my knowledge of science is horrible. Young Earth nut huh...There's No evidence that this Earth And universe is billions of years old. All the evidence is on our side.
@NUTCASE71733 I know plenty about money NUTFACE, you're the one that doesn't. I like how you call me an Idiot when it's quite the contrary. NASA could actually MAKE MILLIONS of Dollars, if they sent that robot car to the Moon. Because, they could broadcast the Moon landing sites on TV worldwide, and get paid for all that advertising, from the biggest companies in the world, that would be Killing to get on that air time!! They wasted 40 million dollars just to bomb the Moon looking for water?!?!!
Even if they made millions, it costs BILLIONS to send things to the moon in the first place. Obviously it is not possible. Advertising would never bring in the required revenue. People will not watch it unlike the first time, because it's been done before = less views = no profit. They KNOW it's not a hoax and they see no reason to waste money like that just to satisfy you.
You don't even understand advertising. Let alone science.
How about an episode about the minimum ages that governments establish too? Explain why people should be allowed to engage in sex when the're sexually mature and get a job or drive when they are fit for it not when the government says so!
I have some pictures that the astronaughts took of the earth while standing on the moons surface - they are awsome! - the earth is some four or five times larger in the heavens of the moon than the moon is viewed here on earth - the most dominent heavenly feature (if not the most awsome and eye catching wonder of their whole experience) was our huge earth hanging in the sky directly above them (so big you could almost reach and touch it!) - if you saw these pictures, you would know its all true!
NASA's own Dr. Heinz Haber stated "in space any casual action will be violently magnified" ('Disney's Man in Space-Space medicine- Adapting to Space' 4 of 8). Ergo, the slow motion behaviors of all of the lunar footage makes no sense at all. Acceleration is amplified but slowing down and ceasing motion becomes more difficult as a body in motion will tend to maintain the direction and speed unless an equal and opposite force acts upon it. stopping the inertia of an objects mass becomes difficult
Dr. Heinz Haber, with the help of some Disney animation, explains some of the effects and hazards of zero gravity and low atmosphere on the human body, however this argument is regarding zero atmosphere and low gravity, the relativity of the subject is crucial to my argument:
Search 'Disney's Man in Space-Space medicine- Adapting to Space' 4 of 8.
@imnazhole What you think that has to do with men spending a few days on the moon in a pressurized capsule and environment suits for the EVAs is a mystery solved in your own deluded mind.
@shanedk You have to take the argument up with Werner Von Braun, Heinz Haber and all of the research scientist who have tested, experimented and made their scientific findings, Jackass!
According to NASA's own research and an archive NASA cartoon on the subject a physical body on the moon can be propelled very quickly without hesitation caused by gravity, friction and air resistance.It is actually decelerating that becomes difficult due to the fact that you will not have gravity and pressure attempting to hold you in place and you would not have the command of friction under the weight of your feet to slow down your mass. It would take far less strength to move your body at 1/6
I think you are a little confused with the facts here (Shane Don't Know). Just remember the exacting terms. This is part of the aviation culture which is to use exacting terms, such as when you learn physics in college. If you refute this (using exacting language and terms in proper context) then you should not be defending various claims in any of the aviation/ aerospace sciences. I do not respect your arguments because they reflect opinions not based on science but illogical belief systems.
GOT YOU LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER CONTINUED: This increase in air pressure continues under the water with a higher density environment (water) and a further increase in pressure. On the moon, however, having 1/6th downward acceleration, this means that everything is 6 times lighter, you can jump six times higher and "lunar dust" should be kicked up 6 times higher than sand or dust should be kicked up on earth. Propelling a body (i.e. running or jumping, even walking) would be six times easier.
@imnazhole Sigh...no, because objects still have the same MASS, and you have to accelerate the mass. Acceleration DUE TO GRAVITY is lowered, but NOT the amount of force you need to accelerate the mass, because MASS DOESN'T CHANGE.
@shanedk Ahh, mass, how the hell could I have not included mass in my well worded "paper" on the subject. Anyway, here I go again... if your "mass" can be moved on earth with relative ease, why would the same mass that your body consist of slow you down on the moon?? We watched the astronauts stroll on to their space ship in archive footage holding their pressure packs, then on the moon they move in slow motion and jump no higher than 4 or so inches. According to NASA DECELERATION is difficult.
@imnazhole Those packs are 60kg. It was another 35kg for the suit itself. I'd like to see YOU carry that burden and then try the things that they did!
@shanedk On the moon 60kg+35kg= 95kg = 209lbs @ 1/6 = .1666666 (209) = 34.8 lbs on the moon. As mass does not change, the astronauts had less than an extra 35 pounds to move around with the same mass that they easily strolled to the space craft with. No atmosphere means no air resistance, friction or pressure to work against plus one sixth the gravity which provides for greater speed, movement and greater distances for the same efforts exerted on earth. However slowing down and stopping are hard
@imnazhole No, they STILL had the full 95kg to move around. Your calculation ONLY applies to the downward gravitational force, and even then, it's cancelled out since all objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass.
@shanedk My physics professor at the Academy explained to us that mass is "the amount of STUFF in a body or object". Weight is the product of mass and gravitational force. You are contradicting yourself by stating that they had a full 95kg to burden and not taking into account that they actually had 1/6th. Like i said and am saying again the mass stays the same but the weight changes proportionately with the changes in the gravitational force. Less gravity= less weight. The mass stays the same.
@imnazhole Uh, no. That's the acceleration of gravity ON EARTH. On the moon, the gravitational acceleration is only ONE SIXTH of that. And you ONLY have terminal velocity in an atmosphere, which again DOESN'T EXIST ON THE MOON! (And even on Earth, terminal velocity depends on the object falling; for a human without a parachute, it's 120mph; for a human WITH a parachute, it's more like 4. And it's different for other objects.)
@shanedk Well according to your earlier statement to me, acceleration (32 ft per sec. per sec) is "SLOWER ON THE MOON" those are your words. So either there is more gravity on the moon, hence the slow motion video of the astronauts, or more pressure on the moon, hence the slow motion video of the astronauts, or both, or maybe it is just slow motion photography. YOU explain that one. I'm listening... = l
@shanedk Like Judge Dread says "I KNEW YOU'D SAY THAT!". OMG I GOT YOU LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER. Gravity is (work hard and pay close attention to the following:) "DOWNWARD" acceleration, not acceleration in all directions. It is acceleration of a body or an object towards the surface of the earth. Gravity, however, does affect motion of all objects because gravity also attracts molecules to the surface thereby increasing atmospheric density closer to the surface. CONTINUED ON NEXT POST...
I hate these nutt jobs who try to debunk the moon landing. I mean c'mon get a life, it was the single most greatest achievement in human history. These people are the same who say they have been analy probed by aliens.
A point you forgot to mention. (Even if anyone with a brain understands it anyway) That guy's comparison with the Manhattan Project is inherently flawed since even though the full agenda of the MP might have been secret to most of people involved in it, it was not a hoax. If the lunar expedition was indeed fake, there's a good chance that someone would've noticed that things didn't really add up.
I'd have to say from reading the comments that anyone who actually says they believe we didn't go to the moon is just a troll. I would ignore'em for what they are honestly. Hell that "documentary" might as well be called a troll too!
Creationism, Moon Hoaxing, 9/11 truthers, they're all the bloody same idiots who just don't want to be wrong. Who need to be right, no matter what evidence shows them to the contrary.
@Rokusho39 Why is it that youtube has become invested with all these conspiracy tin foil hatters? The highest rated comments are always some wacky rebellion rhetoric about the new world order
The more I see how stubbornly some people cling to their conspiracy beliefs in spite of all the logic and evidence in the world, the more fascinated I become. Not just about the 'Moon Hoax' - just about every event in history has some crazy conspiracy associated with it... but I guess the Apollo subject is the one closest to my heart.
When I recall the wonder of it - especially at a time when most news in the world was bad news - I almost pity these people.
The reference to 'V2 and V3' rockets nearly made me fall out of my chair... Someone who makes a 'documentary' on space travel and talks about 'V3 rockets' isn't worthy to make a documentary on own belly button fluff. Anyone who has spent more than 30 seconds researching Hitler's secret weapons knows the V3 was a long-range gun, and not a very successful one.
That's not nit-picking, either. Someone who shows such a lack of knowledge of 1940's tech shouldn't be talking about Apollo.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
google this:
A treasured piece at the Dutch national museum - a supposed moon rock from the first manned lunar landing - is nothing more than petrified wood, curators say.
It was given to former Prime Minister Willem Drees by the three Apollo-11 astronauts shortly after their moon mission in 1969.
When Mr Drees died, the rock went on display at the Amsterdam museum.
At one point it was insured for around $500,000 (£308,000), but tests have proved it was not the genuine article.
Sounds to me like the whole Piltdown down man controversy, except with the moonhoax instead of creationism.
Tell me this, what about all the other rocks that were dated at 3.8 billion + years old, surely they didn't find petrified wood that OLD!! Secondly some of the rocks brought back were far too big to a piece of a tree at any time in their life.
So you have a "rock" which you admit didnt get to the museum via a direct chain of custody from NASA. A rock which which spent about a decade inside the Ministers closet before being handed over to the musuem.
?
How can you even prove that the "rock" given him by NASA was the same rock? Is a decade inside a closet usually accepted as an airtight alibi?
note that Russian scientist who examine their own moon rocks then compared it to Apollo moon rocks(ones they didn't get from some a dead person's processions with no real proof of its real origin) said they are identical.
if you read the full article it said when scientist saw the rock they knew it wasn't from the moon at first glace... back in 2006! if you are even suggesting that proves the Apollo hoax, punch yourself in the face.
I see your videos have been voteboted again. I don't understand why they keep doing that... I hope these votebot youtube accounts will be closed because it's really annoying for us and sad for them at the same time. It's like using the technology to do a propaganda againts the technology and science... wait it's what they do.
I can't listen to Percy for more than 3 seconds without wanting to smash my lap top into pieces. His quasi-authoritative manner is all bluster with no substance. Notice how Kaysing, Rene, Percy and Jarrah White do the authoritative thing. It's all about presentation and spin for the gullible audience.
Don't be disgusted with yourself. Percy and other HBs make it a point to sound very convincing, and they make a point of only showing you what they want you to see rather than the whole picture. In other words, they use the same techniques of deception that are used by magicians.
1. Adam's helmet was moving the same funny way in Moon's gravity! It suppose to move like this in Earth's gravity only. Funny.
2. Saying you can't trust someone on anything, if they are wrong on something, they must be wrong on everything else, is exactly what creationists say about the Piltdown man fraud & a pig tooth taken (for a while) for a human tooth - they say "evolutionists" must be wrong on everything else or hoaxed every other evidence and that's not true!
1. No, it absolutely was not! It was NOT jumping around the way it was in full-G.
The difference between the creationists is, THEY are the liars. SCIENTISTS discovered Piltdown Man was a phony. You are a disgustingly dishonest individual!
I didn't have enough space to write the rest of my comment - I'm not saying they are right, but just because someone is wrong on most things it doesn't mean they are also wrong on the rest. They might be, of course, but it doesn't mean they are. Or just because someone is right on most things it doesn't mean they will not make a single mistake. It only suggest it, but it doesn't prove it. Creationists use exactly the same argument claiming they are right, so it's a poor argument.
Penn Jillette had the best argument ever. "The US managed to cover it all up? They couldn't even cover up a break in to a psychiatrist's office in some cheesy hotel."
You seem to have avoided the question. Its a hypothetical, perhaps it was worded poorly.
Please note that in posing the question below I am not making any claim that new evidence is needed or that the landings were real or fake, though I do have an opinion.
Can you answer me this before making further comment:
If you personally found new evidence that the moon landings were indeed real events in history, would you change your mind?
Well, then, by YOUR standards, NOTHING is impossible to fake, because apparently they could hide cables on film when not even Douglas Trumbull could!!!
What about ALL of the footage? What about the laser reflectors they left behind? What about all the evidence that PROVES they were in an airless 1/6th-G environment?
It would have been WAY more difficult for them to fake all of that than for them to just go to the moon in the first place!!!
We must then assume that your earlier statement concerning truth and not changing opinion is hyperbole.
This is how I see your position if the believer rhetoric is worn away and the rationale remains:
'Once the weight of evidence has convinced you that the moon landings were, in all probability, a hoax you can no longer accept evidence for the moon landings that others find compelling because the hoax requires a conspiracy to falsify evidence.'
Oh, you missed the part where he DELIBERATELY cropped off the part of an image that invalidated his point? Where he presented footage sped up to 150% as being double? Where he DELIBERATELY cut out segments showing the Earth was definitely NOT a cut-out? How he (a director) LIED about CCDs being able to pick up light as good as film? The whole feather-drop fiasco? (And why is the guy in a lab coat?) His lies about O'Leary?
Theres really no lie about what O Leary said. However I do believe that a larger context has been left out (due to the shortcomings of men). What he does say is STILL noticeable.
About the distant earth shoots Iam Not agreeing with the alleged transparency by David Percy. But I DO agree fully with what is presented by Bart Sibrel.
I dont think that Bart Sibrel is a liar. II have to agree to what he is saying. What he did recuried some serious balls. I've never seen that it would be a rectangular window. Please elaborate!
Your postings are certainly awfully fast. (Well I suppose the topic is old to you, that doesnt make you right!)
He did cherry pick a frame where the flap wasnt showing as I said before. Apart from that I do not see any other cherry picking in the whole of the documentary.
There is no rectangular window in the sequences brought forward by Sibrel and Percy.
Percy is wrong about the transparent. Sibrel is right about cropping the earth!
shanedk, there is no WAY you will ever open play69ball's eyes because it apeears that he's brainless. Only brainless beeings can still belive in The Conspiracy Theory. play69ball, are you sure that you're human? Humans normally have a brain LOL...
Watch these please:
watch?v=-lh1xY4A6Xc
watch?v=v2qEEoQCb2I
watch?v=xv1YpXGI3Cs
there are several parts in those 3 clips, be sure to see them all.
One more thing, play69ball please get your brain back please :) we all want you to be human again :)
i don't get how some of the moon landing deniers think that a massive robot could land on the moon and collect moon rocks but refuse to believe a human could also do the same.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This guy is a moron. It is a known fact that governments lie, and the reason to make it to the the moon first has to be seen in 60's context. They simply had to "make it or fake it". All the pics and vids prove it was faked.
And if anyone believes the official line on 9/11, must believe fairies and the Easter Bunny are real as well.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Do you really believe your argument? Are you trying to tell me that even when there were no successful module flights on earth, they took it to the moon and repeatedly flew it without any problems.
Then you try say that we had the technology 40 years ago to land on the moon, but could not make a realistic movie about it here on earth? WTF? We can put a man on the moon,but can't make a film about it. Are you for real? These weak arguments are what keeps the desperate holding onto the govt lies.
Please direct me to footage of flights without it crashing. I would be very interested in viewing them.
I'm assuming that your comments.... "It just is not possible (even today) to actually fake it in any convincing way." .. indicate it would have to be faked and filmed or broadcast directly. Either way, you say we can do it for real 40 years ago, but can't fake it today. Do you really believe your own argument?
Seen the flight for the first time. Thanks, impressed, but not convinced they would take ""Puffing Billy" to the moon after a flight of only a few hundred feet.
That, and the fake footage and pics with errors prove it was not done. The "various" landing sites but have the same terrain and rocks. All fake.
As for "lunar rocks" .They could have been found anywhere, or even meteorites that hit the earth on a daily basis. They didn't have to go far to find rocks to present as lunar samples.
As well as a flight of the lander module in orbit and one in lunar orbit.
"That, and the fake footage and pics with errors prove it was not done. "
The suggested 'errors' are mainly misconceptions. The moon is a very different and odd place. And all the photos/movies are consistent with being there.
The lunar rocks are very different from rocks on earth and could not be from meteorites. as they lack the fusion crust which forms on metorites.
Nicely eviscerated, Shane. Curious as to where you rank the "9/11 Truthers" on the Stupid Bogosity scale, or is that measured on another scale altogether? Say, the Vile Bogosity scale maybe? Any plans to tackle it in an upcoming episode?
This is fun. Some Moon Landing Conspirationists took their time to downthumb some positive comments of this video. I laughed at that even more than at the ownage delivered by the video itself.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Killian, I just received the following PM from Greenmagoos: "Jarrah can you ask shane exactly when I was given a strike three count because I cannot recall the first two warnings. Granted I may have been slightly bosterous on the evening I was banned from his channel but I'm slightly irked because I wasn't that bad. If hes offended by the that wire video I uploaded as a response I have removed his name from the title."
Since it will only be a matter of time before I might also be blocked from posting comments here, how about taking up Jarrah's invitation to continue this "debate" on this chanel?.. It's silly to continue here, since Jarrah has been blocked from posting comments.
We will both be happy to continue our discussions about Apollo and sociopathy here.
Shane tends to leave a comment when he blocks someone, so I doubt he's really been blocked.
The only reason you'd be blocked would be for breaking the rules of the channel which, for all of Jarrah's nonsensical rambling, he's managed to avoid doing so far.
If you two were truly capable of a reasoned debate, psychology wouldn't even have come up.
"Shane tends to leave a comment when he blocks someone, so I doubt he's really been blocked."
Why would shane notify Jarrah that he's been blocked for exposing shane's lies about Windley receiving a letter from Brian O'leary?
"The only reason you'd be blocked would be for breaking the rules of the channel which, for all of Jarrah's nonsensical rambling, he's managed to avoid doing so far.
Obviously not, or he would be able to post comments here.
Jarrah has NOT been blocked. Jarrah is not (so far) in ANY DANGER of being blocked. Whatever else he has done, he has NOT violated the rules of this channel; he hasn't even received a first warning.
As long as that continues, he'll be able to post here whenever he likes.
"Jarrah has NOT been blocked. Jarrah is not (so far) in ANY DANGER of being blocked. Whatever else he has done, he has NOT violated the rules of this channel; he hasn't even received a first warning."
That's good to know .. I will let him know that, so hopefully he can resume posting here again, if he chooses to.. Or better yet, we could contunue this debate on a more appropriate video to the original debate.
Strange. My messages weren't getting through, so I assumed you blocked me. Must have been a Youtube glitch. My mistake.
No matter. Seeing as I'm still able to post messages on this channel, perhaps now you are willing to retract your O'Leary segment. You used Windley as a source, whether you knew he was a liar or not is open for debate. But now that it has been proven that Windley lied about O'Leary, it is in your best interest to retract your erroneous segment.
"If you two were truly capable of a reasoned debate, psychology wouldn't even have come up."
I like to debate psychology and expose narcissistic sociopaths like Bernard.. but since you're obviously not qualified to debate the subject, please feel free to drop it.
It seems SpreadingTheMuse refuses to address the fact that the O'Leary segment in this video is built upon a lie.
So, Killian: I don't suppose you are ready yet to retract your erroneous segment and admit that you've quoted a forged letter written by a proven liar?
The longer you refuse to retract this proven lie, the more you look bad.
Another brainwashed... Flag Sucker.
joecanukk 7 months ago
Percy is a sensationalist scumbag, hair helmet heated brain....Brain go hot and stupidly opportunistic.
Tweekerhead 8 months ago
Awww Shane, why will NASA just not send a little robot car up to the Moon and let it ride around and video tape the Moon landing sites? Heck...They sent one all the way to Mars, and they could drive that one around from Earth, so...the moon should be a breeze, Right?
ironman197268 8 months ago
@ironman197268
Japan took pics of the LEMs left on the moon a couple years ago, and it didnt solve anything. Hoax believers are based on emotion and paranoia, not any responsible fact.
SpreadingtheMuse 8 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse WHAT? Where are these pictures, and I said some videos. Emotion and paranoia....Huh? Why doesn't NASA just launch another moon landing, just for old time sakes?
ironman197268 8 months ago
@ironman197268
"old time sakes" has a price tag of over $100 billion. YOU ask them to fork it over ;)
NASA was making a new trip, but Obama cancelled it last year due to the budget mess. Meanwhile, the Japan pics are nearly everywhere. They were on CNN, the newspapers, and now are right here on youtube. Search for, or google for "LRO Japan Pics." That ought to find them.
SpreadingtheMuse 8 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Are you serious? You really believe that's pictures of the landing sites? It's just the same old FAKE sites taken from area 51. How convenient for you and all the others that still believe NASA put a man on the moon that they were going to do it again last year and Obama cancelled it. There's no way a trip to the moon costs that much, that's just another excuse for them NOT to do it.
ironman197268 8 months ago
@ironman197268 I'm going to believe those are the landing sites before I believe a hoaxaholic newb, yes. Sorry charlie ;) See those pics were released all over the world, and if there was ANYTHING wrong with them, we would have heard from some photographer who actually works for a living and knew what he was talking about, not a dork who cut and pastes "AREA 51" pretending to sound smart.
You dont watch the news? We're A TRILLION DOLLARS IN THE HOLE. No money for moon.
SpreadingtheMuse 8 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse You're itching for some attention with that word "newb" aren't you? So NASA was going to do a man to the moon trip and Obama said NO, we can't afford it. I guess NASA doesn't watch the news either, other wise they would know the USA is A TRILLION DOLLARS IN THE HOLE, which btw it's over 10 trillion dollars in the hole. Do you watch the news? I had no idea those pics were released world wide, cause if they just make it to the Internet, they are only local right?
ironman197268 8 months ago
@ironman197268
"newb" is the PERFECT description. What are you dumb enough to think hoax pushers are? Engineers? Rocket scientists? They're JANITORS. I know cause I ask them and they admit it. They know dick about science, dick about apollo, but they cut and paste dufus webpages pretending to be clever.
Japans LRO apollo pics were given to anyone who asked for them. I saw them on CNN and international news and print media etc etc. Not a soul in any country called them fake.
SpreadingtheMuse 8 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Man your English and sentence structure is horrible!! You really traveled the world and asked all the known moon hoaxers in the world what their occupation is, and the results of ALL of them were, "I'm a JANITOR" Really? Another thing you said, "not a soul in any country called them fake" did you ask all these souls if they called them fake or not? Yours and Shane's moon landing arguments are SUPER weak, and lack easily obtainable, and obvious evidence.
ironman197268 8 months ago
@ironman197268 No, you're a creationist; you're not qualified to be a janitor.
The fact that you're a moon hoaxer too doesn't even make you qualified to be a lab rat.
shanedk 8 months ago
@shanedk Thanks for believing I'm not qualified to be a janitor, you obviously know the Qualifications of a janitor right?
ironman197268 8 months ago
@ironman197268 If one of the qualifications is, "be able to learn a simple thing when it's explained to you," then you have shown to be very unqualified.
shanedk 8 months ago
@ironman197268
I ask every hoaxer who I meet on these boards what their occupation is. Whats so tough about that? Whats YOUR occupation? LOL See that wasnt hard. ;)
I've asked uncountable hoax idiots that same question and the answer is always ridiculous. Its their fault for being bluffing idiots, not mine for calling them on it.
As for the satellite pics if there is someone who called them fake THEN POINT THEM OUT. Either they exist or they dont. Put up or shut up
SpreadingtheMuse 8 months ago
@ironman197268
Could you provide examples of my "poor sentence structure?" Or can we put your claim down as just another conveniently ignorant desperate whine that hoax believers are famous for? ;)
BTW, since you're one of those young-earth nuts, I'm infinitely more justified in saying "Your knowledge of rudimentary 8th grade science is horrible," and you know it ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpreadingtheMuse Just read your sentences, and you wish my knowledge of science is horrible. Young Earth nut huh...There's No evidence that this Earth And universe is billions of years old. All the evidence is on our side.
ironman197268 8 months ago
@ironman197268
If you knew a thing about money yu'd know it'd be impossible to do right now. Besides NASA was downsized to save money. You are an idiot.
NUTCASE71733 4 months ago
@NUTCASE71733 I know plenty about money NUTFACE, you're the one that doesn't. I like how you call me an Idiot when it's quite the contrary. NASA could actually MAKE MILLIONS of Dollars, if they sent that robot car to the Moon. Because, they could broadcast the Moon landing sites on TV worldwide, and get paid for all that advertising, from the biggest companies in the world, that would be Killing to get on that air time!! They wasted 40 million dollars just to bomb the Moon looking for water?!?!!
ironman197268 4 months ago
@ironman197268 -_- How retarded can you get mate?
Even if they made millions, it costs BILLIONS to send things to the moon in the first place. Obviously it is not possible. Advertising would never bring in the required revenue. People will not watch it unlike the first time, because it's been done before = less views = no profit. They KNOW it's not a hoax and they see no reason to waste money like that just to satisfy you.
You don't even understand advertising. Let alone science.
TheHandgunhero 2 months ago
I actually made a verbal comment towards the end of this video:
"V3 wasn't a rocket, it was a cannon!"
Just shows how much that moron knew :)
andromidius 1 year ago
How about an episode about the minimum ages that governments establish too? Explain why people should be allowed to engage in sex when the're sexually mature and get a job or drive when they are fit for it not when the government says so!
rebelq1 1 year ago
I have some pictures that the astronaughts took of the earth while standing on the moons surface - they are awsome! - the earth is some four or five times larger in the heavens of the moon than the moon is viewed here on earth - the most dominent heavenly feature (if not the most awsome and eye catching wonder of their whole experience) was our huge earth hanging in the sky directly above them (so big you could almost reach and touch it!) - if you saw these pictures, you would know its all true!
TREACLE97 1 year ago
@TREACLE97 It's 3.67 times larger, actually.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk NEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@Virgil0211 Yeah, problem?
shanedk 1 year ago 2
@shanedk Nah. Just being silly. =P
Virgil0211 1 year ago
@Virgil0211
CRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sorry, I just had to do that: the Nerd v. Critic feud was just too memorable XD
Albukhshi 1 year ago
NASA's own Dr. Heinz Haber stated "in space any casual action will be violently magnified" ('Disney's Man in Space-Space medicine- Adapting to Space' 4 of 8). Ergo, the slow motion behaviors of all of the lunar footage makes no sense at all. Acceleration is amplified but slowing down and ceasing motion becomes more difficult as a body in motion will tend to maintain the direction and speed unless an equal and opposite force acts upon it. stopping the inertia of an objects mass becomes difficult
imnazhole 1 year ago
Dr. Heinz Haber, with the help of some Disney animation, explains some of the effects and hazards of zero gravity and low atmosphere on the human body, however this argument is regarding zero atmosphere and low gravity, the relativity of the subject is crucial to my argument:
Search 'Disney's Man in Space-Space medicine- Adapting to Space' 4 of 8.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole What you think that has to do with men spending a few days on the moon in a pressurized capsule and environment suits for the EVAs is a mystery solved in your own deluded mind.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk You have to take the argument up with Werner Von Braun, Heinz Haber and all of the research scientist who have tested, experimented and made their scientific findings, Jackass!
imnazhole 1 year ago
According to NASA's own research and an archive NASA cartoon on the subject a physical body on the moon can be propelled very quickly without hesitation caused by gravity, friction and air resistance.It is actually decelerating that becomes difficult due to the fact that you will not have gravity and pressure attempting to hold you in place and you would not have the command of friction under the weight of your feet to slow down your mass. It would take far less strength to move your body at 1/6
imnazhole 1 year ago
I think you are a little confused with the facts here (Shane Don't Know). Just remember the exacting terms. This is part of the aviation culture which is to use exacting terms, such as when you learn physics in college. If you refute this (using exacting language and terms in proper context) then you should not be defending various claims in any of the aviation/ aerospace sciences. I do not respect your arguments because they reflect opinions not based on science but illogical belief systems.
imnazhole 1 year ago
GOT YOU LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER CONTINUED: This increase in air pressure continues under the water with a higher density environment (water) and a further increase in pressure. On the moon, however, having 1/6th downward acceleration, this means that everything is 6 times lighter, you can jump six times higher and "lunar dust" should be kicked up 6 times higher than sand or dust should be kicked up on earth. Propelling a body (i.e. running or jumping, even walking) would be six times easier.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole Sigh...no, because objects still have the same MASS, and you have to accelerate the mass. Acceleration DUE TO GRAVITY is lowered, but NOT the amount of force you need to accelerate the mass, because MASS DOESN'T CHANGE.
Idiot.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Ahh, mass, how the hell could I have not included mass in my well worded "paper" on the subject. Anyway, here I go again... if your "mass" can be moved on earth with relative ease, why would the same mass that your body consist of slow you down on the moon?? We watched the astronauts stroll on to their space ship in archive footage holding their pressure packs, then on the moon they move in slow motion and jump no higher than 4 or so inches. According to NASA DECELERATION is difficult.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole Those packs are 60kg. It was another 35kg for the suit itself. I'd like to see YOU carry that burden and then try the things that they did!
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk On the moon 60kg+35kg= 95kg = 209lbs @ 1/6 = .1666666 (209) = 34.8 lbs on the moon. As mass does not change, the astronauts had less than an extra 35 pounds to move around with the same mass that they easily strolled to the space craft with. No atmosphere means no air resistance, friction or pressure to work against plus one sixth the gravity which provides for greater speed, movement and greater distances for the same efforts exerted on earth. However slowing down and stopping are hard
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole No, they STILL had the full 95kg to move around. Your calculation ONLY applies to the downward gravitational force, and even then, it's cancelled out since all objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass.
YOU'RE AN IDIOT.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk My physics professor at the Academy explained to us that mass is "the amount of STUFF in a body or object". Weight is the product of mass and gravitational force. You are contradicting yourself by stating that they had a full 95kg to burden and not taking into account that they actually had 1/6th. Like i said and am saying again the mass stays the same but the weight changes proportionately with the changes in the gravitational force. Less gravity= less weight. The mass stays the same.
imnazhole 1 year ago
GRAVITY is a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second squared that terminates at 120 mph (Terminal velocity).
PS: Terminal Velocity is not a Charlie Sheen movie. It is a physics term.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole Uh, no. That's the acceleration of gravity ON EARTH. On the moon, the gravitational acceleration is only ONE SIXTH of that. And you ONLY have terminal velocity in an atmosphere, which again DOESN'T EXIST ON THE MOON! (And even on Earth, terminal velocity depends on the object falling; for a human without a parachute, it's 120mph; for a human WITH a parachute, it's more like 4. And it's different for other objects.)
Stupid hoaxtards...
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Well according to your earlier statement to me, acceleration (32 ft per sec. per sec) is "SLOWER ON THE MOON" those are your words. So either there is more gravity on the moon, hence the slow motion video of the astronauts, or more pressure on the moon, hence the slow motion video of the astronauts, or both, or maybe it is just slow motion photography. YOU explain that one. I'm listening... = l
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole LESS GRAVITY means LESS acceleration, NOT MORE!!!
Idiot.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Like Judge Dread says "I KNEW YOU'D SAY THAT!". OMG I GOT YOU LIKE A MOTHERFUCKER. Gravity is (work hard and pay close attention to the following:) "DOWNWARD" acceleration, not acceleration in all directions. It is acceleration of a body or an object towards the surface of the earth. Gravity, however, does affect motion of all objects because gravity also attracts molecules to the surface thereby increasing atmospheric density closer to the surface. CONTINUED ON NEXT POST...
imnazhole 1 year ago
Ugh, WEEAK!
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole
Explain "WEEAK" or admit you ran out of talking points by cut and pasting "Nixon" pretending that made you sound clever.
Nixon wasnt even president thru the first half of Apollo, dumbass. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
why must he talk like a toddler?
losability 1 year ago
alright man, you got me. We went to the moon.
EDMproductions 1 year ago
Haha, did anyone notice the coke bottle reference during the Mythbusters parabolic flight experiment?
Great series btw.
EvilWeevil 1 year ago
> Hey Shane, this is a pretty cool series you've got going here. Have you ever considered making an episode about Holocaust deniers?
CreamyGoodnessX 1 year ago
I love this, it's like Penn and Teller's Bullshit only with less magic/comedy and more actual information
GBart 2 years ago
Hitler looks like Ricky Gervaix
settazteca 2 years ago
Man if this was an actual show, on discovery or something, I'd totally watch it.
Keep up the great work man.
fullmetal7reverend 2 years ago
the moon hoax = most pointless theory ever
adamkyler 2 years ago 15
dude, its not even a theory...or a hypothesis.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
the moon hoax = the gayist theroy ever
PhonedHome 2 years ago 2
I hate these nutt jobs who try to debunk the moon landing. I mean c'mon get a life, it was the single most greatest achievement in human history. These people are the same who say they have been analy probed by aliens.
lazengann1 2 years ago 5
YES! SOMEBODY FUCKING SAID IT!
drew00998 2 years ago
Absolutely fantastic
BespokeGroupUK 2 years ago 4
Thanks for the video. It's always nice to see some light of intellect shown on stupidity.
adamredwine 2 years ago 2
I love it. good job.
shanesmith20m 2 years ago
holy fuck, that guy is like a space version of hovind!!
rubixxcube 2 years ago 4
Phil Plait would be proud
Obelisk2290 2 years ago
3 superb videos..comprehensive and bogus busting at its best.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
A point you forgot to mention. (Even if anyone with a brain understands it anyway) That guy's comparison with the Manhattan Project is inherently flawed since even though the full agenda of the MP might have been secret to most of people involved in it, it was not a hoax. If the lunar expedition was indeed fake, there's a good chance that someone would've noticed that things didn't really add up.
Gameboygenius 2 years ago
So - did they go to the moon or not ? I'm confused.
Sonicmountain09 2 years ago
YES! lol.
kalsolarUK 2 years ago
Great video
DarkTheAtheist 2 years ago
It's like religion lol
DarthSchwartz 2 years ago 2
..q.e.d.
BirdKid8 2 years ago
Great video
RabidLarmer 2 years ago
Can anyone explain me why square root is used when calculating the gravity difference, so 1/6 is not 600% but 246%.
Thanks in advanced.
legi0naire 2 years ago
just test it out. i don't know why, but it works.
93alvbjo 2 years ago
Sure: S = ut + .5at^2
At the apex, the speed is 0, so the ut goes away; a is 9.8m/s^2 on Earth; one-sixth of that is lunar gravity acceleration.
Anyway, to solve for t you do:
t^2 = S/(.5a)
And:
t = sqrt(S/(.5a))
Since S (distance fallen) is the same, then the difference comes out to the square root of a--the difference in acceleration.
shanedk 2 years ago
@shanedk
Thnx
legi0naire 2 years ago
This video got vote boted too (like part 2)
Vote to dillute the effect...
vava54own 2 years ago
nice series. I've never seen some of this footage. Your arguments are very good at showing that this douche is a pile of crap. Thanks! =)
HRRyan2 2 years ago
Nice work with these videos, I hope atleast a few of the moon-landing-deniers will be 'converted' after seeing this :)
Pjatten 2 years ago 3
I'd have to say from reading the comments that anyone who actually says they believe we didn't go to the moon is just a troll. I would ignore'em for what they are honestly. Hell that "documentary" might as well be called a troll too!
ytmhcubed 2 years ago
Quote mining is fucking ridiculous, it's the ultimate tool of shitheads.
SeppukuDoll 2 years ago 4
Creationism, Moon Hoaxing, 9/11 truthers, they're all the bloody same idiots who just don't want to be wrong. Who need to be right, no matter what evidence shows them to the contrary.
Desperate fools seeking desperate attention.
Rokusho39 2 years ago 24
@Rokusho39 Why don't they just believe the truth then, instead of bogosity?
then they could start debunking the moon hoaxers along with us. if they want to be right, then speak the truth.
kargaroc386 1 year ago
@Rokusho39
You are damn right. They are dumbasses, really.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rokusho39 Why is it that youtube has become invested with all these conspiracy tin foil hatters? The highest rated comments are always some wacky rebellion rhetoric about the new world order
PUMKINMANforever 1 year ago
The more I see how stubbornly some people cling to their conspiracy beliefs in spite of all the logic and evidence in the world, the more fascinated I become. Not just about the 'Moon Hoax' - just about every event in history has some crazy conspiracy associated with it... but I guess the Apollo subject is the one closest to my heart.
When I recall the wonder of it - especially at a time when most news in the world was bad news - I almost pity these people.
camilleri63 2 years ago
The reference to 'V2 and V3' rockets nearly made me fall out of my chair... Someone who makes a 'documentary' on space travel and talks about 'V3 rockets' isn't worthy to make a documentary on own belly button fluff. Anyone who has spent more than 30 seconds researching Hitler's secret weapons knows the V3 was a long-range gun, and not a very successful one.
That's not nit-picking, either. Someone who shows such a lack of knowledge of 1940's tech shouldn't be talking about Apollo.
camilleri63 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
google this:
A treasured piece at the Dutch national museum - a supposed moon rock from the first manned lunar landing - is nothing more than petrified wood, curators say.
It was given to former Prime Minister Willem Drees by the three Apollo-11 astronauts shortly after their moon mission in 1969.
When Mr Drees died, the rock went on display at the Amsterdam museum.
At one point it was insured for around $500,000 (£308,000), but tests have proved it was not the genuine article.
gotohellfast 2 years ago
Sounds to me like the whole Piltdown down man controversy, except with the moonhoax instead of creationism.
Tell me this, what about all the other rocks that were dated at 3.8 billion + years old, surely they didn't find petrified wood that OLD!! Secondly some of the rocks brought back were far too big to a piece of a tree at any time in their life.
interstate317 2 years ago
So you have a "rock" which you admit didnt get to the museum via a direct chain of custody from NASA. A rock which which spent about a decade inside the Ministers closet before being handed over to the musuem.
?
How can you even prove that the "rock" given him by NASA was the same rock? Is a decade inside a closet usually accepted as an airtight alibi?
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
You are putting words in my mouth.
I made NO statement at ALL.
My post is a copy of an BBC report.
Shout at the news , if you wanna shout at all.
gotohellfast 2 years ago
And you brought it up SOLELY out of the goodness of your heart did you? ;)
BULL. You were trying to be clever and got shot down.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Pouring a bit of oil into the fire is keeps it going.
;)
gotohellfast 2 years ago
Ah, I get it. So you're just a troll. Thanks for letting us know.
camilleri63 2 years ago
And?
Nasa have sent rock samples for study to scientists and geologists around the world.
Those have been studied in great depth for decades.
And tests show that they are the genuine thing.
ytmoog 2 years ago
are you trying to make a point? I fail to see it.
note that Russian scientist who examine their own moon rocks then compared it to Apollo moon rocks(ones they didn't get from some a dead person's processions with no real proof of its real origin) said they are identical.
if you read the full article it said when scientist saw the rock they knew it wasn't from the moon at first glace... back in 2006! if you are even suggesting that proves the Apollo hoax, punch yourself in the face.
ccaptorchen 2 years ago
I see your videos have been voteboted again. I don't understand why they keep doing that... I hope these votebot youtube accounts will be closed because it's really annoying for us and sad for them at the same time. It's like using the technology to do a propaganda againts the technology and science... wait it's what they do.
newcoleco 2 years ago
What is votebotting?
camilleri63 2 years ago
Excellent!
Thanks again Shane for dedicating your time and effort to fight stupidity and ignorance.
BlisterHiker 2 years ago
I cannot believe I actually believed Percy's documentary when I saw it at age 10. I am disgusted with myself.
Gorilla199abuser 2 years ago
I can't listen to Percy for more than 3 seconds without wanting to smash my lap top into pieces. His quasi-authoritative manner is all bluster with no substance. Notice how Kaysing, Rene, Percy and Jarrah White do the authoritative thing. It's all about presentation and spin for the gullible audience.
FractalDimensions 2 years ago
Don't be disgusted with yourself. Percy and other HBs make it a point to sound very convincing, and they make a point of only showing you what they want you to see rather than the whole picture. In other words, they use the same techniques of deception that are used by magicians.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Good video, but 2 things:
1. Adam's helmet was moving the same funny way in Moon's gravity! It suppose to move like this in Earth's gravity only. Funny.
2. Saying you can't trust someone on anything, if they are wrong on something, they must be wrong on everything else, is exactly what creationists say about the Piltdown man fraud & a pig tooth taken (for a while) for a human tooth - they say "evolutionists" must be wrong on everything else or hoaxed every other evidence and that's not true!
UserNr001 2 years ago
1. No, it absolutely was not! It was NOT jumping around the way it was in full-G.
The difference between the creationists is, THEY are the liars. SCIENTISTS discovered Piltdown Man was a phony. You are a disgustingly dishonest individual!
shanedk 2 years ago
At 1.37 to 1.39 I can see his helmet jumping with him.
UserNr001 2 years ago
Well, OF COURSE IT JUMPS WITH HIM!!! What did you expect? But you do NOT see it hanging and falling the way it does in full gravity!
shanedk 2 years ago
look believe what you want, the only ones who truely know what happend are the ones who actually went or not.
cupoyankee 2 years ago
And they ALL say we went. 100% of them. And there's a TON of evidence backing up their story.
shanedk 2 years ago
I didn't have enough space to write the rest of my comment - I'm not saying they are right, but just because someone is wrong on most things it doesn't mean they are also wrong on the rest. They might be, of course, but it doesn't mean they are. Or just because someone is right on most things it doesn't mean they will not make a single mistake. It only suggest it, but it doesn't prove it. Creationists use exactly the same argument claiming they are right, so it's a poor argument.
UserNr001 2 years ago
Except that I have 100% PROOF that they are liars! That is NOT AT ALL like the Piltdown scenario!
And that's why YOU'RE a liar for bringing that up!
shanedk 2 years ago
Comment removed
puttanesca621 2 years ago
Penn Jillette had the best argument ever. "The US managed to cover it all up? They couldn't even cover up a break in to a psychiatrist's office in some cheesy hotel."
lordthawkeye 2 years ago
Good videos. You're a good man.
I too enjoy ridiculing the hoax freaks.
curea229 2 years ago
Ive really enjoyed our dispute, Shanedk! Once youve seen and accepted the truth theres no going back, ever, Im afraid!
Quote:
I played the WHOLE SEQUENCE. The window is there. They didn't show it because THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SHOW IT!!!
If that is so Im urging you to link to it so that others reading our conversation can get themselves an opinion of their own!
play69ball 2 years ago 2
Again, the full sequence is in Episode 3.
shanedk 2 years ago
Once you've seen the truth there's no going back ever!
Lock carefully at the distant earths, There's things to be seen.
play69ball 2 years ago
"Once youve seen and accepted the truth theres no going back, ever, Im afraid!"
If you found definitive proof that you are wrong would you change your mind?
puttanesca621 2 years ago
If it was real definitive proof would have been gathered and presented! It would have been a priority.
Today, we wouldnt have this dispute amongst 'wanna believers' and 'truth seers'.
play69ball 2 years ago
You seem to have avoided the question. Its a hypothetical, perhaps it was worded poorly.
Please note that in posing the question below I am not making any claim that new evidence is needed or that the landings were real or fake, though I do have an opinion.
Can you answer me this before making further comment:
If you personally found new evidence that the moon landings were indeed real events in history, would you change your mind?
puttanesca621 2 years ago
puttanesca621,
"If you personally found new evidence that the moon landings were indeed real events in history, would you change your mind?"
I would happily change my mind!
play69ball 2 years ago
What evidence would convince you?
shanedk 2 years ago
Shane,
"What evidence would convince you?"
It would need to be something that's virtually impossible to fake, because the magnitude of the achievement is simply beyond the scale.
play69ball 2 years ago
Well, then, by YOUR standards, NOTHING is impossible to fake, because apparently they could hide cables on film when not even Douglas Trumbull could!!!
shanedk 2 years ago
and by YOUR standards hiding cables is a greater feat than going to the moon.
play69ball 2 years ago
What about ALL of the footage? What about the laser reflectors they left behind? What about all the evidence that PROVES they were in an airless 1/6th-G environment?
It would have been WAY more difficult for them to fake all of that than for them to just go to the moon in the first place!!!
shanedk 2 years ago
play69ball: "I would happily change my mind!"
We must then assume that your earlier statement concerning truth and not changing opinion is hyperbole.
This is how I see your position if the believer rhetoric is worn away and the rationale remains:
'Once the weight of evidence has convinced you that the moon landings were, in all probability, a hoax you can no longer accept evidence for the moon landings that others find compelling because the hoax requires a conspiracy to falsify evidence.'
puttanesca621 2 years ago
Ive just been watching the documentary What happened on the Moon in its entirety.
Ill have to say that anyone defending the Apollo moon landings is nothing more than a pathetic wanna believer.
Please do tell Santa I said Hello
play69ball 2 years ago
Yes, because we tend to reject outright lies. [rolls eyes]
Have you NO response to Percy's PROVEN dishonesty?
shanedk 2 years ago
He was wrong about the flap in the John Young jump salut. Otherwise I'm unable to see any errors in what was presented or in the logic made .
play69ball 2 years ago
Oh, you missed the part where he DELIBERATELY cropped off the part of an image that invalidated his point? Where he presented footage sped up to 150% as being double? Where he DELIBERATELY cut out segments showing the Earth was definitely NOT a cut-out? How he (a director) LIED about CCDs being able to pick up light as good as film? The whole feather-drop fiasco? (And why is the guy in a lab coat?) His lies about O'Leary?
No response to ANY of that???
shanedk 2 years ago
Youre overwhelming in your reply.
Theres really no lie about what O Leary said. However I do believe that a larger context has been left out (due to the shortcomings of men). What he does say is STILL noticeable.
About the distant earth shoots Iam Not agreeing with the alleged transparency by David Percy. But I DO agree fully with what is presented by Bart Sibrel.
play69ball 2 years ago
What, you mean Sibrel's LIE that it was a circular window when it was really rectangular?
shanedk 2 years ago
I dont think that Bart Sibrel is a liar. II have to agree to what he is saying. What he did recuried some serious balls. I've never seen that it would be a rectangular window. Please elaborate!
play69ball 2 years ago
What, did he just not notice it when he was cherry-picking his footage???
I show the rectangular window in Episode 3. I believe I showed it again in Episode 9, although I may have edited it out, but it's definitely in 3.
shanedk 2 years ago
Your postings are certainly awfully fast. (Well I suppose the topic is old to you, that doesnt make you right!)
He did cherry pick a frame where the flap wasnt showing as I said before. Apart from that I do not see any other cherry picking in the whole of the documentary.
There is no rectangular window in the sequences brought forward by Sibrel and Percy.
Percy is wrong about the transparent. Sibrel is right about cropping the earth!
Episode 9 !?!
play69ball 2 years ago
Oh? It wasn't cherry-picking when he deliberately picked a sequence where the Earth didn't come near the window when it was visible?
I played the WHOLE SEQUENCE. The window is there. They didn't show it because THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SHOW IT!!!
shanedk 2 years ago
shanedk, there is no WAY you will ever open play69ball's eyes because it apeears that he's brainless. Only brainless beeings can still belive in The Conspiracy Theory. play69ball, are you sure that you're human? Humans normally have a brain LOL...
Watch these please:
watch?v=-lh1xY4A6Xc
watch?v=v2qEEoQCb2I
watch?v=xv1YpXGI3Cs
there are several parts in those 3 clips, be sure to see them all.
One more thing, play69ball please get your brain back please :) we all want you to be human again :)
Amxd 2 years ago
ace vid will be watching more
60021111 2 years ago
i don't get how some of the moon landing deniers think that a massive robot could land on the moon and collect moon rocks but refuse to believe a human could also do the same.
Fernoe 2 years ago
A very thorough pwnage. Excellent video sir
Taraalcar 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guy is a moron. It is a known fact that governments lie, and the reason to make it to the the moon first has to be seen in 60's context. They simply had to "make it or fake it". All the pics and vids prove it was faked.
And if anyone believes the official line on 9/11, must believe fairies and the Easter Bunny are real as well.
greygtv6 2 years ago
"It is a known fact that governments lie"
It is a known fact that people lie, have you ever lied?
"All the pics and vids prove it was faked."
All the pics, videos, 800 lbs of collected samples, dozens of scientific experiments, A16 UV images and retroreflectors prove it was real.
It just is not possible (even today) to actually fake it in any convincing way.
While I certainly would not instantly believe the 'official line' on anything, the evidence says the moon landings occured.
ytmoog 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you really believe your argument? Are you trying to tell me that even when there were no successful module flights on earth, they took it to the moon and repeatedly flew it without any problems.
Then you try say that we had the technology 40 years ago to land on the moon, but could not make a realistic movie about it here on earth? WTF? We can put a man on the moon,but can't make a film about it. Are you for real? These weak arguments are what keeps the desperate holding onto the govt lies.
greygtv6 2 years ago
"there were no successful module flights on earth"
There were many successful test flights.
The Lunar lander for example was tested in earth orbit, it was later tested in lunar orbit, then it made a successful landing.
"We can put a man on the moon,but can't make a film about it. "
What?
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Please direct me to footage of flights without it crashing. I would be very interested in viewing them.
I'm assuming that your comments.... "It just is not possible (even today) to actually fake it in any convincing way." .. indicate it would have to be faked and filmed or broadcast directly. Either way, you say we can do it for real 40 years ago, but can't fake it today. Do you really believe your own argument?
greygtv6 2 years ago
"Please direct me to footage of flights without it crashing."
Here is one:
/watch?v=vbl800iQJDI
"you say we can do it for real 40 years ago, but can't fake it today."
Exactly right.
The moon rocks collected cannot be faked in such a way that would fool any half way intelligent geologist.
The photos and videos certainly could not be faked in the 60s as there was no such thing as CGI then.
ytmoog 2 years ago
Seen the flight for the first time. Thanks, impressed, but not convinced they would take ""Puffing Billy" to the moon after a flight of only a few hundred feet.
That, and the fake footage and pics with errors prove it was not done. The "various" landing sites but have the same terrain and rocks. All fake.
As for "lunar rocks" .They could have been found anywhere, or even meteorites that hit the earth on a daily basis. They didn't have to go far to find rocks to present as lunar samples.
greygtv6 2 years ago
There were many successful flights.
As well as a flight of the lander module in orbit and one in lunar orbit.
"That, and the fake footage and pics with errors prove it was not done. "
The suggested 'errors' are mainly misconceptions. The moon is a very different and odd place. And all the photos/movies are consistent with being there.
The lunar rocks are very different from rocks on earth and could not be from meteorites. as they lack the fusion crust which forms on metorites.
ytmoog 2 years ago
I've just read through most of the comments. It was emotional. Great up load Shane.
tkw251070 2 years ago
Oh man, I enjoy your lunar lunacy videos the most¡.
Thanks for your work.
essme3 2 years ago
You are great. Everyone should see what you do! Keep this up for as long as you can!
ErikeRKK 2 years ago
Nicely eviscerated, Shane. Curious as to where you rank the "9/11 Truthers" on the Stupid Bogosity scale, or is that measured on another scale altogether? Say, the Vile Bogosity scale maybe? Any plans to tackle it in an upcoming episode?
554466551 2 years ago
Yes, eventually.
The bogosity that's the stupidest on the scale is whichever one I happen to be debunking at the time. ;^)
shanedk 2 years ago
This is fun. Some Moon Landing Conspirationists took their time to downthumb some positive comments of this video. I laughed at that even more than at the ownage delivered by the video itself.
chstoney 2 years ago 2
Great stuff. Thanks for your work!
roentgen571 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Killian, I just received the following PM from Greenmagoos: "Jarrah can you ask shane exactly when I was given a strike three count because I cannot recall the first two warnings. Granted I may have been slightly bosterous on the evening I was banned from his channel but I'm slightly irked because I wasn't that bad. If hes offended by the that wire video I uploaded as a response I have removed his name from the title."
Well, Killian? Any comments?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
No comment on O'Leary and Windley?
OK, how about Phil Plait putting words in peoples' mouths: watch ? v = g1kVeXXTn1s
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
Attention: shane, Muse, and Virgil.
Since it will only be a matter of time before I might also be blocked from posting comments here, how about taking up Jarrah's invitation to continue this "debate" on this chanel?.. It's silly to continue here, since Jarrah has been blocked from posting comments.
We will both be happy to continue our discussions about Apollo and sociopathy here.
'MoonFaker: Jay Windley vs Brian O'Leary'
watch?v=MmTLzTJ4TuU&feature=email
straydog02 3 years ago
Shane tends to leave a comment when he blocks someone, so I doubt he's really been blocked.
The only reason you'd be blocked would be for breaking the rules of the channel which, for all of Jarrah's nonsensical rambling, he's managed to avoid doing so far.
If you two were truly capable of a reasoned debate, psychology wouldn't even have come up.
Virgil0211 3 years ago
"Shane tends to leave a comment when he blocks someone, so I doubt he's really been blocked."
Why would shane notify Jarrah that he's been blocked for exposing shane's lies about Windley receiving a letter from Brian O'leary?
"The only reason you'd be blocked would be for breaking the rules of the channel which, for all of Jarrah's nonsensical rambling, he's managed to avoid doing so far.
Obviously not, or he would be able to post comments here.
straydog02 3 years ago
Jarrah has NOT been blocked. Jarrah is not (so far) in ANY DANGER of being blocked. Whatever else he has done, he has NOT violated the rules of this channel; he hasn't even received a first warning.
As long as that continues, he'll be able to post here whenever he likes.
shanedk 3 years ago
"Jarrah has NOT been blocked. Jarrah is not (so far) in ANY DANGER of being blocked. Whatever else he has done, he has NOT violated the rules of this channel; he hasn't even received a first warning."
That's good to know .. I will let him know that, so hopefully he can resume posting here again, if he chooses to.. Or better yet, we could contunue this debate on a more appropriate video to the original debate.
'MoonFaker: Jay Windley vs Brian O'Leary'
watch?v=MmTLzTJ4TuU&feature=em ail
straydog02 3 years ago
"Jarrah has NOT been blocked."
Strange. My messages weren't getting through, so I assumed you blocked me. Must have been a Youtube glitch. My mistake.
No matter. Seeing as I'm still able to post messages on this channel, perhaps now you are willing to retract your O'Leary segment. You used Windley as a source, whether you knew he was a liar or not is open for debate. But now that it has been proven that Windley lied about O'Leary, it is in your best interest to retract your erroneous segment.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
"If you two were truly capable of a reasoned debate, psychology wouldn't even have come up."
I like to debate psychology and expose narcissistic sociopaths like Bernard.. but since you're obviously not qualified to debate the subject, please feel free to drop it.
straydog02 3 years ago
Now where was I? Oh yes.
It seems SpreadingTheMuse refuses to address the fact that the O'Leary segment in this video is built upon a lie.
So, Killian: I don't suppose you are ready yet to retract your erroneous segment and admit that you've quoted a forged letter written by a proven liar?
The longer you refuse to retract this proven lie, the more you look bad.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago