it's a shame there wasn't an Apollo 18 mission. my mother remembers watching the first lunar mission with Armstrong etc. on the family's black and white tv in sussex england but the whole world watched so.. humans will go back to the moon and later mars. being born in late 1983 i can only imagine the excitement from these clips
We should just stop feeding the trolls. Two lunar sattelites, including a non-NASA one from Japan, have photographed the Apollo 17 landing site. We know it happened. Period.
My argument against so-called moon-hoax conspiracy theorists is it would just be a lot easier to just send a couple guys to the moon than to fake it and keep thousands of people quiet and continue the hoax into 1973 when nobody really cared about going to the moon after 1970. We went to the moon.
So deal with it and move on to your next con-theo.
@Tamaslammer ...ummm hear of the Van Allen radiation belt? The northern lights are beautiful, but they are actually solar radiation bouncing off the magnetic field that protects the earth. The moon doesn't have a magnetic field and the space suits have no shielding.
For a start the camera 'pulls back', then pans up with the lem in perfect synchronicity - how would they know how fast the image would stay in frame? And judging by the blast-off the camera doesn't even move from the blast wave. If the camera was mounted on the rover the blast wave would have shaken the camera violently but because of zero gravity would still be shaking slightly as it panned up following the take-off. Also the LEM wobbles as it ascends... mmmmm...on wires??
@caxtonman Well you're seeing the whole sequence here - just after the point where it cuts to the internal view, the camera started to struggle a little to keep the LM in view. This footage was carefully planned (because of the signal lag between Earth and Moon) and executed from Houston, having made two previous attempts (with less success) on Apollos 15 & 16.
I don't think you can have a blast wave in a vacuum (nothing to propogate it) but in any event the camera was about 100 metres away.
@eventcone If there is no blast wave because of the vacuum of space, how come on another sequence of film taken within the LEM of it's take-off through one of the windows does it blast the living shit out of the flag and everything next to it? I have looked closely at the footage of the Apollo 17 film and it shows equipment falling over at normal gravity speed, exaggerated walking by the astronaughts, dodgy lighting etc., just an observation..
@caxtonman It's been a while since I last studied fluid flow through a nozzle into vacuum (in this case the rocket exhaust expelled from the LM engine). There are doubtless people who post here who, if they see this, may be able to speak with more authority. But I suggest the following:
You're seeing the effects of fast-moving gases as they impact the LIGHTER objectsabout the site (flag, bits of mylar). However their effect probably reduces with the square of their distance from the (cont)
@caxtonman LM engine. So by the time they reach the camera, thats a reduction of 100 x 100= 10000 times.
Even if that's an over-estimation, it can still be far less and yet be enough (I think) to have no effect on the camera 100m away.
On some LM take-offs, you can see debris carried a long, long way over the surface. Put that down to the absence of atmosphere which, on earth, would have slowed the objects markedly.
@caxtonman "I have looked closely at the footage of the Apollo 17 film and it shows equipment falling over at normal gravity speed, exaggerated walking by the astronaughts, dodgy lighting etc., just an observation".
Just an observation? Can you be sure that you are not just seeing what you WANT to see, because you have already made up your mind on this, and are looking for "evidence" to support your choice?
What you describe is not evidence, but opinion. But is your opinion unprejudiced?
@eventcone As I said, It is my opinion from what I observed - I think they call it Freedom of Speech? Judging by your response I think you are the prejudiced one my friend.
I didn't intend to make an accusation. Perhaps I tried to squeeze what I wanted to say into too small a "space"! Sometimes that gives your response a tone you didn't intend - if so I apologise.
Well OK, I respect your opinion. May I just say that, every piece of Apollo footage I've seen from the lunar surface looks just fine and natural to me. As a student of Newton, I see nothing untoward (in contrast to every movie I've seen showing activity on the moon).
@caxtonman "the LEM wobbles as it ascends... mmmmm...on wires??".
This question has already been debated on this video, or on another post of it.
The motion you describe is a feature of the LM's guidance system. The engine doesn't gymbal to steer the LM (as do the engines on the CSM, Saturn V). Rather, this is done by the RCS thrusters which fire intermittently to correct deviations from the intended flight path, or to keep it stabilised. The LM here is balanced on its engine by the RCS.
@CodeGreen47 You can hear astronauts ascending to Earth orbit on both the Shuttle and the Saturn, when much more powerful engines are operating (about 7million pounds thrust vs about 3000). Additionally, the majority of noise from a rocket engine comes from the interaction between its eflux and the atmosphere - but there is no atmosphere here.Finally, the astronauts are suited and helmeted with their voice microphones inside their helmets.
@CodeGreen47 I think I did - see my reply to caxtonman.
I'm not an expert on the effects of rocket exhaust passing over an object in what is otherwise a vacuum, but I can say that it is obviously going to expand VERY rapidly (unlike in an atmosphere) so that it's effect must be small before it has travelled very far from the engine nozzle. In the case of the camera: It was mounted on the Rover parked at least 100 metres from the LM. I think we can dismiss it as negligible by that point.
@CodeGreen47 Also: Every astronaut that has ridden a rocket to (Earth) orbit speaks of the noise and vibration during the initial stages of the ascent, but then goes on to describe how everything becomes MUCH quieter as the vehicle starts to clear the atmosphere. This is because the vast majority of the noise from a rocket engine comes from the interaction of the engine eflux with the atmosphere.
In the above video, the vehicle is already in vacuum, and the engine is (relatively) tiny.
@CodeGreen47 Also: Every astronaut that has ridden a rocket to (Earth) orbit speaks of the noise and vibration during the initial stages of the ascent, but then goes on to describe how everything becomes MUCH quieter as the vehicle starts to clear the atmosphere. This is because the vast majority of the noise from a rocket engine comes from the interaction of the engine eflux with the atmosphere.
In the above video, the vehicle is already in vacuum, and the engine is (relatively) tiny.
how is it that the camera follows the launch? Remote control from NASA? 240,000 miles away with no lag? CNN still has audio lag in live interviews from the middle east in 2011. The camera tracks like it is CCT... oh and they are sending to unmanned probes to the moon quite soon, why not a manned mission? The truth is that man can't survive outside the Earth's magnetic field .. gamma radiation. The thing is that they knew it would take decades to prove this was a hoax.
@CONTROVERSYRISING first you have to prove an alterior motive "fooling the Russians" but that doesnt hold up because USSR accepts the facts, never questioned the US landings. Not survive ? not true at all, man can absolutely survive outside the magnetic field. The effects have been proven over and over ad nauseum,
this camera was onboard the still operating lunar rover, tracking a radio transponder on the LEM, footage was then transmitted to earth / NASA for viewing. takes 2.6 seconds from moon
Do a little research and check out the story behind the Remote camera operator who did it. He had to anticipate the latency and started tilting the camera when the countdown got to "2". He timed it just right. They trained and trained and trained some more for this stuff. : )
@Tamaslammer trained on what? Any examples of wireless technology used in the day? CNN can't get audio synched to video in live interviews being transmitted over 10,000 miles today. That camera had to have the power to broadcast signal back 240,000 miles. Today they use satellites to relay, no high tech satellites back then. They still can't control the Mars Rover properly all the time.
This is one of the few videos without filtered audio where you can hear the assent engine burning the hyperbolic fuels. A very smooth sound and what one would expect. Do you really think the Space Shuttle could have existed at all without the moon program?
This is one of the few videos without filtered audio where you can hear the assent engine burning the hyperbolic fuels. A very smooth sound and what one would expect. Do you really thing the Space Shuttle could have existed at all without the moon program?
@MrFBCBSALES And the dumbest per head of population in the western world. I mean most of u belive the bible is true.....and this belief that u are the greatest has caused the most horrific wars. I didnt know what blue on blue was till the UK went to war with u idiots.
In this time of rampant conspiracy theories, it is important to note that independent evidence, from non-governmental observers, documents large objects exhibiting exactly the configuration and behavior of the Apollo spacecraft en route to and from the Moon on all the Apollo missions. In fact, the final Lunar Orbiter mission was also tracked optically in lunar orbit.
Wow, that Dave McGowan Wagging the Moondoogie reference got you bashing out the replies, didn't it? You're blustering, floundering, using all the usual techniques. You, much like this video, are a fake.
@sxmadrid Nice tactic. Someone challenges YOU to provide evidence and, knowing you are unequal to the task, you sidestep it and go on the attack. You accuse THEM of blustering and floundering.
nesokretep is right - it is bunk. And it's not that difficult for a reasonable person to see it.
@eventcone 'Sidestep'? I cant' dance for toffee. I provide references in both my replies. There's plenty of evidence and argument to get you started at davesweb DOT cnchost DOT com SLASH Apollo1 DOT html
Some of it may not impress, some of it may be answerable in multiple ways, but some is very compelling and it's a nice collection of 'landing' problems that puts one in the right direction. It's not possible to summarise all the issues in these little boxes.
The point about conspiracy theories is that’s all they are, theories. Anyone can start one, start an internet page and there is always someone who will believe the conspiracy and if there is any aspect of the theory that does not fit then ignore it. Prime example is the moon landing. Considering there was the space race with the USSR going on at the time do you not you think they would found out about the hoax through their intelligence network?
@Rob260259@Rob260259 "The point about conspiracy theories is that’s all they are, theories", like Evolution, the speherical Earth assertion, the existence of the Bilderberg Group, no ship sunk in Gulf of Tonkin incident....
"...[D]o you not you think [the Ruskies] would found [sic] out about the hoax through their intelligence network?" I'm sure all major intel nets are well informed.
@sxmadrid You clearly are very ignorant. Do You really believe that the Soviets, during the Cold War, would have let USA fix a hoax like this without crying out loud, embarassing their "enemies"? After all, Soviet had fought very hard to be first with every new thing in space to show the world who was the leading technological nation.
@YDDES You really believe the Soviets would trade a Truth war with a fellow superpower (Russians bullshit too), and that they would be able to blow the lid off a US govt scam in an info war on Western airwaves with no adequate defence from GE, Disney, Time Life, BBC and the other Titans of Western programming? The 'landing' hoax had a shelf life: perhaps the Soviet brass prefer to laugh at the increasingly awkward position of their US counterparts.
@sxmadrid All right, You clearly ARE totally ignorant about the world during the Cold war. And about the technology back then. That's about all I need to say...
@Rob260259 Why should we believe that USSR would have been (talk about conditional verb tenses) automatically 100% sure that they could sniff the hoax. It's in the past, so it's all suppositions, both ways.
You say "Russians would have found out". Not necessarily. There's nothing 100% sure. It's easy to say that now that we know history. Well, part of history, at least...
You have a lot to learn Simboiss. Try learning how the Soviets monitored *all* movements at the Cape in the early sixties. Try learning how they did it. Try learning what ICBM polar trajectories are. Learn about SIGINT and the Soviet STC.
By "mysticism" I mean this: On the moon landing subject, I see people saying totally weird things based completely on their imagination like: "there should have been a blast crater" and "shadows are non-parallel" and claiming that there's no way the LM would have been able to blast off into lunar orbit, when even a fundamental understanding of physics and actual, verifyable facts can prove these so-called "objections" to be false to the point of being silly.
It's that general psychological tendency for people to think that a significant event must have been caused by something similarly major, significant or powerful.
As soon some people don't understand or comprehend certain things, they'll go into 'distrust-mode' and start a conspiracy theory.
But they're not imagining things - theyr'e just parroting the learned arguments they've picked up elsewhere, through which to express their distrust of authority ;-)
We know the Moon Landings happened, because the Russians said so and because we now have independent confirmation of the landing sites, from the Indian Chandrayaan-1 mission.
But the hoaxtards will never let it go - they've invested too much time into weaving their web of lies, to see it destroyed by a few simple facts.
Talking about the Internet: it has not changed history. It is unable to change history. It has just given idiots a bigger soapbox to stand on.
I have to laugh at YouTube noobs who think of themselves as some sort of "truth patriots" yet they lack the knowledge to understand the science behind the Apollo program.
Real patriots are the astronauts. People who would slander them are just ass clowns.
The Moonlandings were the result of damn good engineering and a lot of courage.
@Rob260259 'Real patriots' sometimes lie to their countrymen as part of the war effort. That's a brave and sacrficial thing to do.
The moonlanding hoax was the result of damn good engineering, along with so much else that was damn good (intelligence, creative thinking, politicking, long term planning, film making, secret keeping...).
Joking, are you? There would have been hundreds if not thousands of people in on this conspiracy and yet nobody said a word. Astronauts, NASA management, technicians, film crews, people who created the moon stages, directed the films, dealt with the outtakes, the scientific advisors who would have needed to be on hand to oversee every aspect of every bit of film, video or voice transmission to make it as authentic as possible. It's been 40+ years. Nobody said a word...
@Rob260259 "hundreds if not thousands" of maniacal 'patriots' prepared to lie for the cause: wow. And loads more willing to kill and mame for it. Doesn't seem so incredible to me.
@sxmadrid -- There is only on tiny little thing wrong with your theory:
There is NO evidence that Apollo was a "hoax."
That's right -- none at all that actually makes sense or is consistent with a basic understanding of physics.
And there is in fact very solid evidence (which does NOT require you to "believe" NASA or the Government) that many of the main proponents of the hoax-theory (such as David Percy, Marcus Allen, and Bart Sibrel) are just plain frauds.
@Simboiss -- You could also say that you personally have no proof that George Washington existed ... or that atomic bombs are real ... or that there are any jet aircraft that can actually go faster than the speed of sound.
But yes, all of these things have some evidence -- Washington, the A-bomb, super-sonic jets, and the moon landings. It's just a matter of how good the evidence is.
And for people who are not mystified by aerospace technology it is not hard to understand how Apollo was done,
@sxmadrid Of course some of it is very compelling. It's "designed" to be.
Look, I know it's difficult to keep an open mind. The vast majority of us are not witnesses to any historical event except through the media of the day (including the internet!). Our perceptions can be distorted. We can be deceived by people ON EITHER SIDE of a debate. Who (if anyone) is deceiving us here?
In the interests of balance, why not visit (with an open mind) some of the moon hoax debunking sites?
Who zoomed and panned the camera to follow the capsule which looks like it is on a string with a firecracker to simulate liftoff? Where did they fit the rover? How come there is not one picture of unloading or assembling the rover? There's not enough room in the lander for two fully suited astronauts. NASA Specs of control cabin. On and on goes the NAZI dupe.
@buginchproductions 1)His name was Ed Fendell.2)In a triangular bay 3 foot wide;search for "Moon machines" here at utube.3)There is a video from A15 where they show it in full detail.4)Probably Specs from the original design where they still had seats in it-if not, go to the Air/Space Museum in Washington, there is a LEM and take a look yourself.5)I´m German , served my Country 2 years in the Navy and I´m sure you would have not have the guts to say that into my face.
Kapton was used extensively in the Apollo program. It was used as thermal insulation on the Lunar Module. During the return journey from the Moon, Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong commented that during the launch of the Lunar Module Ascent Stage, he could see "Kapton and other parts on the LM staging scattering all around the area for great distances." This is quite evident in this clip.
@sxmadrid As I understand it, the camera was remotely operated from Houston (NASA). They had to account for the 2.5 second delay it took for the round trip of the radio/remote controlled transmissions.
@sxmadrid You could have asked "who worked the crane?", but that would have marked you for an idiot. Fortunately you didn't ask, so relax - nobody knows! ;-)
@sxmadrid This is one of the coolest pieces of Apollo footage.
As a professional engineer, I can tell you that there is nothing about it that looks "fake". Everything looks and behaves exactly as it should.
You may think that is purely a matter of opinion, but don't rely on intuition or so-called "common sense" as your guide here. Unless you have some relevant knowledge or experience of the principles involved it can lead you astray. As can watching the film with fixed preconceptions....?
@nesokretep It's fake because the evidence (much of it) tells us that NASA didn't send people to the moon. A good starting point for those interested is the fact they can't do it today, as they state on their website. There's much to look into and to think about. Wagging the Moondoogie by Dave McGowan (available online) is a fun intro to some of the problems with the 'landings' case, and a trip to NASA's web for their side of the story doesn't make the probs vanish. Luck 2U
@sxmadrid -- I have seen much of the so-called "evidence" that Apollo was a hoax. I have done my own analysis of the "evidence" that I've seen. Every single bit of it that I have seen is just ignorant bunk. And there is some of it that is just plain fraudulent and depends on the credulity of an ignorant audience.
@sxmadrid -- For example: There are supposed "experts" (David Percy, David Groves, Marcus Allen, etc) who try to convince you that things in shadow shouldn't be visible to the camera. But they leave out multiple very significant sources of natural light from their so-called "analysis." A credulous viewer who doesn't bother to think for himself just sits there and believes these frauds and says "oh, man! that's right!!!"
But the fact of the matter is that these "experts" really ARE frauds.
@sxmadrid -- Another popular piece of "evidence" is the "no blast crater" argument. It was first promoted by a guy named Bill Kaysing. What it really proves is that Kaysing (and his followers) can't (or don't bother to) do simple arithmetic. They talk about the "big, powerful rocket engine" and the "10,000 lbs of thrust."
But anyone with a brain can figure out that the force at the rocket nozzle was only about 1.5 pounds per square inch, and even that would have dissipated significantly.
@sxmadrid -- You say "a good starting point is the fact they can't do it today?"
Oh, wow.
What makes you think they don't have the technology to do it today?
No. Don't point me to NASA saying that they need to do more research before their next lunar mission because the next mission profile is nothing like what they did during Apollo. It is much more comprehensive and will, in fact, require much more research and development.
@sxmadrid - I have seen so much supposed "evidence" that Apollo was supposedly a "hoax" that I am not really inclined to wade through yet another bunch of BS that says the same thing. (And no, it is NOT that I just "believe" NASA. It is that I have actually looked into the "hoax evidence" and found it to be bunk.)
So tell me: Do you have some favorite new, really impressively convincing piece of evidence that any high school kid who passed his physics class couldn't debunk?
@Simboiss haha i was just looking up at my comments. lol, i just realised that all my replies have been directed at you and the numerous stupid assumptions and coments you have made on this video. do some research before you come here preaching your conspiracy bullshit. i hope these skeptics are starting to accept that the apollo landings DID happen. all of your theories have been debunked, and i bet that all you skeptics are starting to think about all the time youve wasted HAHAHAHA
@amor987654321 Well, no. Research says that we should err on the side of doubt, not the other way around. Each doubt in the process is a little marble on the side of the hoax. Too many marbles makes the event a hoax until new order...
@nesokretep I doubt the little "firecracker" could really account for the lift of the module, even in Lunar gravity. You will notice also that the module ascends up to a maximum limit, after which the video cuts to something else. This is because the crane that lifted the module had reached its maximum height.
@Simboiss Your remarks are so uneducated and ignorant. The camera on the Rover which filmed the lift off couldn't pan to a higher angle. And, have You searched in other sources than on Youtube to find videos that may show more of the lift offs and other things?
@Simboiss that little firecracker was 15,500 newtons of force, more than enough to get a small craft of 4,500kg off the moon (obviously because of the lack of atmospheric drag and 1/6th earth gravity) ill let you do the math, i dont have space in my comment to do so. also, just because you cant see the flame out the back doesnt mean it wasnt there. the hyperbolic fuels used on the LEM burn with an invisible flame when burnt in a vacuum, you can see the ignition at the beginning.
@colty77 yep the idiots admitt they forgot to add the time to the appollo 16 mission and you think these retards really went to the moon. oh and by the way the singnal was one way so the delay is only half. do your by chance work for NASA?
@colty77 yes an astronaut admits on camera they forgot to allow time delay on apollo 16 and missed the shot. do you think these retards really went to the moon? oh and by the way the signal to the camera is one way not round trip as you stated. do you perhaps work for NASA?
The camera was mounted on the lunar rover and, for this shot, was controlled by remote control back in Houston. There is a several second delay in communication to the moon because it's so far away so the first couple times they tried this on other landings the timing was off and they didn't get a very good shot of the liftoff. This was the only one where they panned with the right timing to get a good picture.
It cost about 10 times as much as NASA's current budget. Why would they want to do it again? They've already been there.
The argument that they "can't do it today" is blatantly silly. Of course we could do it again. And we probably will ... some time. But to continue to spend that money all the time just ain't gonna happen.
@nesokretep Now that the US government say they want to return to the Moon in 2020 pretty much destroys the argument, whether they really go or not. The US government is ready to dish out hundreds of billions for stupid wars, so they wouldn't mind spending billions on Moon exploration.
The evidence of a hoax is crushing. I posted a partial summary of it on a science forum. To see it, google "The Naked Scientist". In the "New Theories" section there's a thread entitled "Did we land on the moon?". The post is on page 15. It's the 7th one from the top.
@Simboiss Yeah thats right mate, because all cameras cannot possibly function without a human personally carrying the thing.
Hmmm, wait a minute. could it be that the camera was mounted on the LRV and remotely controlled?!?!?when china gets there in 2020 i pray to god that they visit one of the apollo sites and finally silence all these fucking skeptic whores.
apologies if your statement was just a little joke and you were not implying that this footage was faked.
How did they link up with the "mother ship" (the Apollo command module) ...
Both ships have docking ports. They went into lunar orbit and connected the two ships together. Then they left the lander behind and came home in the command module.
They practiced docking in space as early as some of the Gemini orbiter missions several years earlier.
I just took the 'out-the-window' shot and overlayed it onto the satellite shot taken by the LRO,
and give or take some distortion because of the angle that the LEM was at, whaddya know? Perfect match. The flag and the footprints are all in the exact same spot.
When will people finally stop thinking this was faked??
@Simboiss Very much comes from the "outside", as for example the trackings of the rockets and the spaceships, by both radar and radio. And the moonrocks that all the international scientists who have examined them, say are genuin.
@Simboiss I may be mistaken, but i believe there is an indian satellite, chandraay-1 or sum shit which has confirmed the landing sites of the apollo missions where various shit was left behind i.e. descent stage, LRV etc.
@Simboiss -- And yes, the 7000 pounds of fuel in the ascent module only had to burn for 9 minutes to accelerate the thing to the 4,000 miles per hour lunar orbital velocity.
And yes, it is very plain to see that there is plenty of room in the LM ascent stage for 7,000 pounds of fuel.
These things are easy to figure out.
That you would call it a "firecracker" and joke about its ability to reach lunar orbit just shows you don't actually care to understand the thing.
@nesokretep That's OK. The numbers work. Numbers are easy to fake, especially when it's numbers that can't be verified. We are talking about a module that is allegedly at several hundreds of thousands of km, in an unknown, unreproducible environment. Theoretical calculations are easy to create.
The numbers for the acceleration and energy needed for taking the LM ascent module from the surface to orbit are very easy to verify.
They are completely impossible to "fake."
That you think the environment is "unknown" just because it is "way out in space somewhere" (or whatever silly mystical notion you have about it) just shows --again-- that you don't actually care to know anything for real on the subject.
@Simboiss Just because ONE little part of the whole project COULD be "faked" in Your opinion, that doesn't mean that all the other parts (and thereby the whole project), that couldn't be "faked" were actually fakes.
There is a 110 amp hour battery that was powering the high gain for the TV camera. There was about 78 amp hours left on it when lift off occurred. (The TV camera lasted about 3 days after)
Yes -- there was oxygen in the Aerozine 50 fuel used for the LEM...
...HOWEVER, Aerozine 50 burns almost invisibly in the near vacuum of space (or the near vacuum of the lunar surface).
Not all rocket fuels burn with a "fiery/smokey" exhaust plume -- especially in a vacuum. Aerozine 50 burning on Earth would have a visible exhaust, but that's only because of the thick atmosphere.
@Simboiss, hypergolic ignition systems are VERY common, because it is convenient when you want to store your fuels for long periods and you want to be able to turn on or shot off your burn without an external ignition system--you just mix the fuels. Are you suggesting every common use of a hypergolic system is false? Do you have better system to recommend NASA use to do what they needed to do? Look carefully and you'll see visible ignition for a brief moment, then clear. That's how it works.
@Simboiss are u fucking serious? thats just how shit works mate. its science. the hyperbolic fuels used do not show a visible flame when burnt in a vacuum. just because something doesnt comply with your expectations doesnt mean its fake. fuck off skeptics. all your bullshit theories have been debunked. STOP. WASTING.YOUR.FUCKING.TIME. the moon landings have been confirmed.
A better question would be: If they faked it, why would they not put in "booster exhaust?" Hollywood movies of space ships had been made with "booster exhaust" for at least 30 years by then.
If they were gonna fake it, they surely would have remembered to put in the exhaust!!
You don't see any exhaust because it was not visible. Why would it be visible? It's only lifting about 2000 pounds. Probly less than 5PSI pressure out the nozzle.
I love this. Doubters are always saying, "If they went to the moon, why don't they take pictures of the Apollo landing sites from an orbiting probe or something?"
There you have it at :19
If you won't believe that image of the A-17 decent stage sitting on the lunar surface, why would you believe any other shot?
@LunarTuner It's all from NASA. Therefore, it can only be used as data, not evidence. That would be like asking a robber to provide all the evidence of the crime.
it's a shame there wasn't an Apollo 18 mission. my mother remembers watching the first lunar mission with Armstrong etc. on the family's black and white tv in sussex england but the whole world watched so.. humans will go back to the moon and later mars. being born in late 1983 i can only imagine the excitement from these clips
jopeon1983 4 days ago
We should just stop feeding the trolls. Two lunar sattelites, including a non-NASA one from Japan, have photographed the Apollo 17 landing site. We know it happened. Period.
admiralbob77 1 month ago
@caxtonman
My argument against so-called moon-hoax conspiracy theorists is it would just be a lot easier to just send a couple guys to the moon than to fake it and keep thousands of people quiet and continue the hoax into 1973 when nobody really cared about going to the moon after 1970. We went to the moon.
So deal with it and move on to your next con-theo.
Tamaslammer 3 months ago
@Tamaslammer ...ummm hear of the Van Allen radiation belt? The northern lights are beautiful, but they are actually solar radiation bouncing off the magnetic field that protects the earth. The moon doesn't have a magnetic field and the space suits have no shielding.
CONTROVERSYRISING 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FUCK EVERYONE! Can't you understand that the moon missions were faked in a studio?
Here's a link to some of the evidence.
politicalforum (dot) com/moon-landing/190138-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio (dot) html
Cosmicmoron 3 months ago
I've noticed the footage shown on this video is an exact match of the pictures taken by the LRO.
I will assume there are people that still think all 6 missions were faked and now the LRO photos are faked.
tpacI0 4 months ago
Thank you really appreciate the acceptance:)
andschannll 4 months ago
American (p) lie. :D
kaes2000 4 months ago
For a start the camera 'pulls back', then pans up with the lem in perfect synchronicity - how would they know how fast the image would stay in frame? And judging by the blast-off the camera doesn't even move from the blast wave. If the camera was mounted on the rover the blast wave would have shaken the camera violently but because of zero gravity would still be shaking slightly as it panned up following the take-off. Also the LEM wobbles as it ascends... mmmmm...on wires??
caxtonman 4 months ago
@caxtonman Well you're seeing the whole sequence here - just after the point where it cuts to the internal view, the camera started to struggle a little to keep the LM in view. This footage was carefully planned (because of the signal lag between Earth and Moon) and executed from Houston, having made two previous attempts (with less success) on Apollos 15 & 16.
I don't think you can have a blast wave in a vacuum (nothing to propogate it) but in any event the camera was about 100 metres away.
eventcone 4 months ago
@eventcone If there is no blast wave because of the vacuum of space, how come on another sequence of film taken within the LEM of it's take-off through one of the windows does it blast the living shit out of the flag and everything next to it? I have looked closely at the footage of the Apollo 17 film and it shows equipment falling over at normal gravity speed, exaggerated walking by the astronaughts, dodgy lighting etc., just an observation..
caxtonman 4 months ago
@caxtonman It's been a while since I last studied fluid flow through a nozzle into vacuum (in this case the rocket exhaust expelled from the LM engine). There are doubtless people who post here who, if they see this, may be able to speak with more authority. But I suggest the following:
You're seeing the effects of fast-moving gases as they impact the LIGHTER objectsabout the site (flag, bits of mylar). However their effect probably reduces with the square of their distance from the (cont)
eventcone 4 months ago
@caxtonman LM engine. So by the time they reach the camera, thats a reduction of 100 x 100= 10000 times.
Even if that's an over-estimation, it can still be far less and yet be enough (I think) to have no effect on the camera 100m away.
On some LM take-offs, you can see debris carried a long, long way over the surface. Put that down to the absence of atmosphere which, on earth, would have slowed the objects markedly.
eventcone 4 months ago
@caxtonman "I have looked closely at the footage of the Apollo 17 film and it shows equipment falling over at normal gravity speed, exaggerated walking by the astronaughts, dodgy lighting etc., just an observation".
Just an observation? Can you be sure that you are not just seeing what you WANT to see, because you have already made up your mind on this, and are looking for "evidence" to support your choice?
What you describe is not evidence, but opinion. But is your opinion unprejudiced?
eventcone 4 months ago
@eventcone As I said, It is my opinion from what I observed - I think they call it Freedom of Speech? Judging by your response I think you are the prejudiced one my friend.
caxtonman 4 months ago
@caxtonman Ha! Nice comeback!
I didn't intend to make an accusation. Perhaps I tried to squeeze what I wanted to say into too small a "space"! Sometimes that gives your response a tone you didn't intend - if so I apologise.
Well OK, I respect your opinion. May I just say that, every piece of Apollo footage I've seen from the lunar surface looks just fine and natural to me. As a student of Newton, I see nothing untoward (in contrast to every movie I've seen showing activity on the moon).
eventcone 4 months ago
@caxtonman "the LEM wobbles as it ascends... mmmmm...on wires??".
This question has already been debated on this video, or on another post of it.
The motion you describe is a feature of the LM's guidance system. The engine doesn't gymbal to steer the LM (as do the engines on the CSM, Saturn V). Rather, this is done by the RCS thrusters which fire intermittently to correct deviations from the intended flight path, or to keep it stabilised. The LM here is balanced on its engine by the RCS.
eventcone 4 months ago
Um.. where's the engine blast and why can we hear astronauts so clearly without the engines in the background??
CodeGreen47 5 months ago
@CodeGreen47 You can hear astronauts ascending to Earth orbit on both the Shuttle and the Saturn, when much more powerful engines are operating (about 7million pounds thrust vs about 3000). Additionally, the majority of noise from a rocket engine comes from the interaction between its eflux and the atmosphere - but there is no atmosphere here.Finally, the astronauts are suited and helmeted with their voice microphones inside their helmets.
eventcone 4 months ago
Comment removed
CodeGreen47 4 months ago
I dont think suits would block the engine sound that much, and how do you explain the missing engine blast?
CodeGreen47 4 months ago
@CodeGreen47 I think I did - see my reply to caxtonman.
I'm not an expert on the effects of rocket exhaust passing over an object in what is otherwise a vacuum, but I can say that it is obviously going to expand VERY rapidly (unlike in an atmosphere) so that it's effect must be small before it has travelled very far from the engine nozzle. In the case of the camera: It was mounted on the Rover parked at least 100 metres from the LM. I think we can dismiss it as negligible by that point.
eventcone 4 months ago
@CodeGreen47 Also: Every astronaut that has ridden a rocket to (Earth) orbit speaks of the noise and vibration during the initial stages of the ascent, but then goes on to describe how everything becomes MUCH quieter as the vehicle starts to clear the atmosphere. This is because the vast majority of the noise from a rocket engine comes from the interaction of the engine eflux with the atmosphere.
In the above video, the vehicle is already in vacuum, and the engine is (relatively) tiny.
eventcone 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CodeGreen47 Also: Every astronaut that has ridden a rocket to (Earth) orbit speaks of the noise and vibration during the initial stages of the ascent, but then goes on to describe how everything becomes MUCH quieter as the vehicle starts to clear the atmosphere. This is because the vast majority of the noise from a rocket engine comes from the interaction of the engine eflux with the atmosphere.
In the above video, the vehicle is already in vacuum, and the engine is (relatively) tiny.
eventcone 4 months ago
how is it that the camera follows the launch? Remote control from NASA? 240,000 miles away with no lag? CNN still has audio lag in live interviews from the middle east in 2011. The camera tracks like it is CCT... oh and they are sending to unmanned probes to the moon quite soon, why not a manned mission? The truth is that man can't survive outside the Earth's magnetic field .. gamma radiation. The thing is that they knew it would take decades to prove this was a hoax.
CONTROVERSYRISING 5 months ago
@CONTROVERSYRISING There is no "controversy" here. You have been misinformed about gamma radiation.
iop39531 5 months ago
@CONTROVERSYRISING first you have to prove an alterior motive "fooling the Russians" but that doesnt hold up because USSR accepts the facts, never questioned the US landings. Not survive ? not true at all, man can absolutely survive outside the magnetic field. The effects have been proven over and over ad nauseum,
this camera was onboard the still operating lunar rover, tracking a radio transponder on the LEM, footage was then transmitted to earth / NASA for viewing. takes 2.6 seconds from moon
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
@CONTROVERSYRISING
Do a little research and check out the story behind the Remote camera operator who did it. He had to anticipate the latency and started tilting the camera when the countdown got to "2". He timed it just right. They trained and trained and trained some more for this stuff. : )
Tamaslammer 5 months ago
@Tamaslammer Rover camera remote ? I always thought they had it radio-tracking the LEM but that would work too, thanks for the info !
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
@Tamaslammer trained on what? Any examples of wireless technology used in the day? CNN can't get audio synched to video in live interviews being transmitted over 10,000 miles today. That camera had to have the power to broadcast signal back 240,000 miles. Today they use satellites to relay, no high tech satellites back then. They still can't control the Mars Rover properly all the time.
CONTROVERSYRISING 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is one of the few videos without filtered audio where you can hear the assent engine burning the hyperbolic fuels. A very smooth sound and what one would expect. Do you really think the Space Shuttle could have existed at all without the moon program?
bd048 5 months ago
fake and gay
olobolo20 6 months ago
@olobolo20
Wow.. there really is people like you in the world who think we never went to the moon.
(Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary)
I thought you guys were just a hoax.
Tamaslammer 5 months ago
@Tamaslammer
it is as fake as Alkaid is responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center >)
olobolo20 5 months ago
@olobolo20
Alkaid? What the fuck is an Alkaid?
A benefit concert for Alk's?
Tamaslammer 5 months ago
@olobolo20 Proof please.
1MtnBoy 5 months ago
This is one of the few videos without filtered audio where you can hear the assent engine burning the hyperbolic fuels. A very smooth sound and what one would expect. Do you really thing the Space Shuttle could have existed at all without the moon program?
bd048 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ever notice how people with the word "TRUTH" in their screen names are the most full of shit?
TheFACTSRUS 6 months ago
Really stunning footage that for all its flaws makes me proud to be an American. We are and have always been the greatest!
MrFBCBSALES 7 months ago
@MrFBCBSALES And the dumbest per head of population in the western world. I mean most of u belive the bible is true.....and this belief that u are the greatest has caused the most horrific wars. I didnt know what blue on blue was till the UK went to war with u idiots.
1THETRUTH10 6 months ago
fuck all who dont believe we went 2 the moon we did theres damn proof!
JaStudiosFlash 8 months ago
They left cameraman behind! :(
EugenKaalikas 9 months ago
Another movie with models and surfaces made of plaster of Paris...
Simboiss 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In this time of rampant conspiracy theories, it is important to note that independent evidence, from non-governmental observers, documents large objects exhibiting exactly the configuration and behavior of the Apollo spacecraft en route to and from the Moon on all the Apollo missions. In fact, the final Lunar Orbiter mission was also tracked optically in lunar orbit.
Synthetrix 11 months ago
....I hope so
sxmadrid 1 year ago
Wow, that Dave McGowan Wagging the Moondoogie reference got you bashing out the replies, didn't it? You're blustering, floundering, using all the usual techniques. You, much like this video, are a fake.
sxmadrid 1 year ago
@sxmadrid Nice tactic. Someone challenges YOU to provide evidence and, knowing you are unequal to the task, you sidestep it and go on the attack. You accuse THEM of blustering and floundering.
nesokretep is right - it is bunk. And it's not that difficult for a reasonable person to see it.
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone 'Sidestep'? I cant' dance for toffee. I provide references in both my replies. There's plenty of evidence and argument to get you started at davesweb DOT cnchost DOT com SLASH Apollo1 DOT html
Some of it may not impress, some of it may be answerable in multiple ways, but some is very compelling and it's a nice collection of 'landing' problems that puts one in the right direction. It's not possible to summarise all the issues in these little boxes.
sxmadrid 1 year ago
@sxmadrid
The point about conspiracy theories is that’s all they are, theories. Anyone can start one, start an internet page and there is always someone who will believe the conspiracy and if there is any aspect of the theory that does not fit then ignore it. Prime example is the moon landing. Considering there was the space race with the USSR going on at the time do you not you think they would found out about the hoax through their intelligence network?
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259 @Rob260259 "The point about conspiracy theories is that’s all they are, theories", like Evolution, the speherical Earth assertion, the existence of the Bilderberg Group, no ship sunk in Gulf of Tonkin incident....
"...[D]o you not you think [the Ruskies] would found [sic] out about the hoax through their intelligence network?" I'm sure all major intel nets are well informed.
sxmadrid 1 year ago
@sxmadrid You clearly are very ignorant. Do You really believe that the Soviets, during the Cold War, would have let USA fix a hoax like this without crying out loud, embarassing their "enemies"? After all, Soviet had fought very hard to be first with every new thing in space to show the world who was the leading technological nation.
YDDES 1 year ago
@YDDES You really believe the Soviets would trade a Truth war with a fellow superpower (Russians bullshit too), and that they would be able to blow the lid off a US govt scam in an info war on Western airwaves with no adequate defence from GE, Disney, Time Life, BBC and the other Titans of Western programming? The 'landing' hoax had a shelf life: perhaps the Soviet brass prefer to laugh at the increasingly awkward position of their US counterparts.
sxmadrid 1 year ago
@sxmadrid All right, You clearly ARE totally ignorant about the world during the Cold war. And about the technology back then. That's about all I need to say...
YDDES 1 year ago
@YDDES
"That's about all I need to say..."
That's too much for Sxmadrid. Because he's not only ignorant, he's paranoide too. He makes his own world and his own 'truth'. Forget him.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259 Yes, I have to agree with You. No evidence. No knowledge. No logic...
YDDES 1 year ago
@YDDES
"No evidence. No knowledge. No logic..."
Three of the most basic items to come to a conspiracy...
Thanks.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259 Maybe they would find out, maybe not...
Simboiss 11 months ago
@Simboiss
Why..?
Rob260259 11 months ago
@Rob260259 Why should we believe that USSR would have been (talk about conditional verb tenses) automatically 100% sure that they could sniff the hoax. It's in the past, so it's all suppositions, both ways.
You say "Russians would have found out". Not necessarily. There's nothing 100% sure. It's easy to say that now that we know history. Well, part of history, at least...
Simboiss 11 months ago
@Simboiss
You have a lot to learn Simboiss. Try learning how the Soviets monitored *all* movements at the Cape in the early sixties. Try learning how they did it. Try learning what ICBM polar trajectories are. Learn about SIGINT and the Soviet STC.
Rob260259 11 months ago
@Rob260259 It's still a supposition, and not a demonstration...
Simboiss 11 months ago
@Simboiss
You still didn't learn. The Soviets *acknowledged* the landings on the Moon.
Rob260259 11 months ago
This is what I'm curious about:
Why all the mysticism attached to the moon landings? It was a huge engineering project. That's all.
I mean, I see people thinking that it was "impossible" because... why? Because it's the moon? What's so magical about the moon?
The Manhattan project was by FAR a much more huge breakthrough in mankind's scientific understanding and nobody questions that.
Apollo merely took basically existing technology and did a huge project with it.
nesokretep 11 months ago
By "mysticism" I mean this: On the moon landing subject, I see people saying totally weird things based completely on their imagination like: "there should have been a blast crater" and "shadows are non-parallel" and claiming that there's no way the LM would have been able to blast off into lunar orbit, when even a fundamental understanding of physics and actual, verifyable facts can prove these so-called "objections" to be false to the point of being silly.
So: What's the mystery?
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep
"What's the mystery?"
It's that general psychological tendency for people to think that a significant event must have been caused by something similarly major, significant or powerful.
As soon some people don't understand or comprehend certain things, they'll go into 'distrust-mode' and start a conspiracy theory.
Rob260259 11 months ago
@nesokretep
But they're not imagining things - theyr'e just parroting the learned arguments they've picked up elsewhere, through which to express their distrust of authority ;-)
We know the Moon Landings happened, because the Russians said so and because we now have independent confirmation of the landing sites, from the Indian Chandrayaan-1 mission.
But the hoaxtards will never let it go - they've invested too much time into weaving their web of lies, to see it destroyed by a few simple facts.
GlowWorm1962 10 months ago
@GlowWorm1962 supose the rusians said no, would you still say yes?
datzfast 9 months ago
@sxmadrid
Talking about the Internet: it has not changed history. It is unable to change history. It has just given idiots a bigger soapbox to stand on.
I have to laugh at YouTube noobs who think of themselves as some sort of "truth patriots" yet they lack the knowledge to understand the science behind the Apollo program.
Real patriots are the astronauts. People who would slander them are just ass clowns.
The Moonlandings were the result of damn good engineering and a lot of courage.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259 'Real patriots' sometimes lie to their countrymen as part of the war effort. That's a brave and sacrficial thing to do.
The moonlanding hoax was the result of damn good engineering, along with so much else that was damn good (intelligence, creative thinking, politicking, long term planning, film making, secret keeping...).
sxmadrid 1 year ago
@sxmadrid
Joking, are you? There would have been hundreds if not thousands of people in on this conspiracy and yet nobody said a word. Astronauts, NASA management, technicians, film crews, people who created the moon stages, directed the films, dealt with the outtakes, the scientific advisors who would have needed to be on hand to oversee every aspect of every bit of film, video or voice transmission to make it as authentic as possible. It's been 40+ years. Nobody said a word...
Rob260259 1 year ago
@Rob260259 "hundreds if not thousands" of maniacal 'patriots' prepared to lie for the cause: wow. And loads more willing to kill and mame for it. Doesn't seem so incredible to me.
sxmadrid 1 year ago
@sxmadrid
Bye.
Rob260259 1 year ago
@sxmadrid -- There is only on tiny little thing wrong with your theory:
There is NO evidence that Apollo was a "hoax."
That's right -- none at all that actually makes sense or is consistent with a basic understanding of physics.
And there is in fact very solid evidence (which does NOT require you to "believe" NASA or the Government) that many of the main proponents of the hoax-theory (such as David Percy, Marcus Allen, and Bart Sibrel) are just plain frauds.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep There is no evidence that Apollo was "real" either. Evidence works both ways.
Simboiss 11 months ago
@Simboiss -- You could also say that you personally have no proof that George Washington existed ... or that atomic bombs are real ... or that there are any jet aircraft that can actually go faster than the speed of sound.
But yes, all of these things have some evidence -- Washington, the A-bomb, super-sonic jets, and the moon landings. It's just a matter of how good the evidence is.
And for people who are not mystified by aerospace technology it is not hard to understand how Apollo was done,
nesokretep 11 months ago
@sxmadrid Of course some of it is very compelling. It's "designed" to be.
Look, I know it's difficult to keep an open mind. The vast majority of us are not witnesses to any historical event except through the media of the day (including the internet!). Our perceptions can be distorted. We can be deceived by people ON EITHER SIDE of a debate. Who (if anyone) is deceiving us here?
In the interests of balance, why not visit (with an open mind) some of the moon hoax debunking sites?
eventcone 1 year ago
Who zoomed and panned the camera to follow the capsule which looks like it is on a string with a firecracker to simulate liftoff? Where did they fit the rover? How come there is not one picture of unloading or assembling the rover? There's not enough room in the lander for two fully suited astronauts. NASA Specs of control cabin. On and on goes the NAZI dupe.
buginchproductions 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buginchproductions 1)His name was Ed Fendell.2)In a triangular bay 3 foot wide;search for "Moon machines" here at utube.3)There is a video from A15 where they show it in full detail.4)Probably Specs from the original design where they still had seats in it-if not, go to the Air/Space Museum in Washington, there is a LEM and take a look yourself.5)I´m German , served my Country 2 years in the Navy and I´m sure you would have not have the guts to say that into my face.
stevehislop 1 year ago
Comment removed
stevehislop 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kapton was used extensively in the Apollo program. It was used as thermal insulation on the Lunar Module. During the return journey from the Moon, Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong commented that during the launch of the Lunar Module Ascent Stage, he could see "Kapton and other parts on the LM staging scattering all around the area for great distances." This is quite evident in this clip.
Synthetrix 1 year ago
Comment removed
guitarnashelter 1 year ago
@guitarnashelter man chill out! do you believe everything the government tells you.
brmc230 1 year ago 3
@brmc230 no,but i belive what my eyes see when i see reality,and that is the moon,not a studio,are you blind or braindead
guitarnashelter 1 year ago 9
@guitarnashelter That's a representation of the Moon, not the Moon itself.
Simboiss 11 months ago
sucks that was the last moon mission. if they would of continued it we would shurley been to mars by now.
wessendorf15 1 year ago
Who worked the camera?
sxmadrid 1 year ago
@sxmadrid As I understand it, the camera was remotely operated from Houston (NASA). They had to account for the 2.5 second delay it took for the round trip of the radio/remote controlled transmissions.
colty77 1 year ago 10
@colty77 Perhaps I should have asked who worked the crane.
sxmadrid 1 year ago
@sxmadrid You could have asked "who worked the crane?", but that would have marked you for an idiot. Fortunately you didn't ask, so relax - nobody knows! ;-)
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone Relax? I'm serene, sweetie. This vid is faker than spaghetti trees. You'd be a fool not to notice that.
sxmadrid 1 year ago
@sxmadrid This is one of the coolest pieces of Apollo footage.
As a professional engineer, I can tell you that there is nothing about it that looks "fake". Everything looks and behaves exactly as it should.
You may think that is purely a matter of opinion, but don't rely on intuition or so-called "common sense" as your guide here. Unless you have some relevant knowledge or experience of the principles involved it can lead you astray. As can watching the film with fixed preconceptions....?
eventcone 1 year ago
@eventcone A pro engineer with a Thunderbirds degree? Sell the lie with authority and move on.
sxmadrid 1 year ago
@sxmadrid - What calculations have you done in order to come to the conclusion that this video is "fake?"
Be specific.
Tell exactly what is different in the video from what it "would" look like on the moon.
Be careful. Saying "it's obvious" only proves that you have not actually thought about it.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep It's fake because the evidence (much of it) tells us that NASA didn't send people to the moon. A good starting point for those interested is the fact they can't do it today, as they state on their website. There's much to look into and to think about. Wagging the Moondoogie by Dave McGowan (available online) is a fun intro to some of the problems with the 'landings' case, and a trip to NASA's web for their side of the story doesn't make the probs vanish. Luck 2U
sxmadrid 1 year ago
@sxmadrid -- I have seen much of the so-called "evidence" that Apollo was a hoax. I have done my own analysis of the "evidence" that I've seen. Every single bit of it that I have seen is just ignorant bunk. And there is some of it that is just plain fraudulent and depends on the credulity of an ignorant audience.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@sxmadrid -- For example: There are supposed "experts" (David Percy, David Groves, Marcus Allen, etc) who try to convince you that things in shadow shouldn't be visible to the camera. But they leave out multiple very significant sources of natural light from their so-called "analysis." A credulous viewer who doesn't bother to think for himself just sits there and believes these frauds and says "oh, man! that's right!!!"
But the fact of the matter is that these "experts" really ARE frauds.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@sxmadrid -- Another popular piece of "evidence" is the "no blast crater" argument. It was first promoted by a guy named Bill Kaysing. What it really proves is that Kaysing (and his followers) can't (or don't bother to) do simple arithmetic. They talk about the "big, powerful rocket engine" and the "10,000 lbs of thrust."
But anyone with a brain can figure out that the force at the rocket nozzle was only about 1.5 pounds per square inch, and even that would have dissipated significantly.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep How do you "figure out" that?
Simboiss 11 months ago
@sxmadrid -- You say "a good starting point is the fact they can't do it today?"
Oh, wow.
What makes you think they don't have the technology to do it today?
No. Don't point me to NASA saying that they need to do more research before their next lunar mission because the next mission profile is nothing like what they did during Apollo. It is much more comprehensive and will, in fact, require much more research and development.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@sxmadrid - I have seen so much supposed "evidence" that Apollo was supposedly a "hoax" that I am not really inclined to wade through yet another bunch of BS that says the same thing. (And no, it is NOT that I just "believe" NASA. It is that I have actually looked into the "hoax evidence" and found it to be bunk.)
So tell me: Do you have some favorite new, really impressively convincing piece of evidence that any high school kid who passed his physics class couldn't debunk?
If so, what is it?
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nesokretep The photo studies by Jack White are quite interesting.
Simboiss 11 months ago
@Simboiss haha i was just looking up at my comments. lol, i just realised that all my replies have been directed at you and the numerous stupid assumptions and coments you have made on this video. do some research before you come here preaching your conspiracy bullshit. i hope these skeptics are starting to accept that the apollo landings DID happen. all of your theories have been debunked, and i bet that all you skeptics are starting to think about all the time youve wasted HAHAHAHA
amor987654321 9 months ago
@amor987654321 Well, no. Research says that we should err on the side of doubt, not the other way around. Each doubt in the process is a little marble on the side of the hoax. Too many marbles makes the event a hoax until new order...
Simboiss 6 months ago
@nesokretep I doubt the little "firecracker" could really account for the lift of the module, even in Lunar gravity. You will notice also that the module ascends up to a maximum limit, after which the video cuts to something else. This is because the crane that lifted the module had reached its maximum height.
Simboiss 11 months ago
@Simboiss Your remarks are so uneducated and ignorant. The camera on the Rover which filmed the lift off couldn't pan to a higher angle. And, have You searched in other sources than on Youtube to find videos that may show more of the lift offs and other things?
YDDES 11 months ago
@Simboiss that little firecracker was 15,500 newtons of force, more than enough to get a small craft of 4,500kg off the moon (obviously because of the lack of atmospheric drag and 1/6th earth gravity) ill let you do the math, i dont have space in my comment to do so. also, just because you cant see the flame out the back doesnt mean it wasnt there. the hyperbolic fuels used on the LEM burn with an invisible flame when burnt in a vacuum, you can see the ignition at the beginning.
amor987654321 9 months ago
@amor987654321 When you're in a practice zone with leverage devices, you don't care about the calculations on fuel and forces needed to liftoff.
Simboiss 6 months ago
@Simboiss oh and come on. your random assumptions about what happened hardly compare to solid facts and science.
did the consider the fact that the camera mounted on the LRV couldn't go to a higher angle? because that is a simple explanation.
amor987654321 9 months ago
@amor987654321 No, it just means the crane has a upper limit and that's why the camera couldn't go higher.
Simboiss 6 months ago
@Simboiss "No, it just means the crane has a upper limit and that's why the camera couldn't go higher".
No, it just means that it's a sequence that had the upper part of the ascent EDITED OUT OF IT.
Hint: Always go for one of the more simple explanations!
And now, for the full sequence, go to: watch?v=cOdzhQS_MMw&NR=1&feature=fvwp
There you'll see the LM pitch forward in order to begin accelerating to orbital velocity, moving downrange as it does so.
eventcone 5 months ago
@eventcone Heheh, no it's a good question. The crane was at Langley Research Center. Who operated it? Who knows...
Simboiss 11 months ago
@colty77 yep the idiots admitt they forgot to add the time to the appollo 16 mission and you think these retards really went to the moon. oh and by the way the singnal was one way so the delay is only half. do your by chance work for NASA?
datzfast 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@colty77 yes an astronaut admits on camera they forgot to allow time delay on apollo 16 and missed the shot. do you think these retards really went to the moon? oh and by the way the signal to the camera is one way not round trip as you stated. do you perhaps work for NASA?
datzfast 1 year ago
stupid americasisick. Do you really believe at this shit?
bambetel 11 months ago
@sxmadrid On all missions with the rover (Apollo 15, 16 and 17) it was Ed Fendell - the Instrumentation & Communications Officer, or INCO).
soberek 9 months ago
"How come there is no booster exhaust"?
It's really simple. In order for there to be a flame oxygen must be present. There is no oxygen in space.
enm97 2 years ago
@enm97 There is oxygen in the tanks of the spaceships.
Simboiss 11 months ago
who was filming the takeoff
UNTC321 2 years ago
The camera was mounted on the lunar rover and, for this shot, was controlled by remote control back in Houston. There is a several second delay in communication to the moon because it's so far away so the first couple times they tried this on other landings the timing was off and they didn't get a very good shot of the liftoff. This was the only one where they panned with the right timing to get a good picture.
nesokretep 2 years ago
a fella in Houston was operating the joystick?
really?
sounds like a fib.
it means they should be able to do that today then.
send a hi-res camera up on a probe and operate it from Houston?
must call bullshit on this because...again they fail to do 40 years later...what they did in 1969.
namaste
islandbuoy4 2 years ago
"How come they don't do it again today?"
Do you have any clue how much this all cost?
It cost about 10 times as much as NASA's current budget. Why would they want to do it again? They've already been there.
The argument that they "can't do it today" is blatantly silly. Of course we could do it again. And we probably will ... some time. But to continue to spend that money all the time just ain't gonna happen.
nesokretep 2 years ago
@nesokretep Now that the US government say they want to return to the Moon in 2020 pretty much destroys the argument, whether they really go or not. The US government is ready to dish out hundreds of billions for stupid wars, so they wouldn't mind spending billions on Moon exploration.
Simboiss 11 months ago
@nesokretep This is also extremely convenient for NASA, because this way they don't have to reproduce the Lunar liftoff as many times.
Simboiss 11 months ago
its a robotic camera that was left there watch when we left earth and it tells about it
MaldonadoMadness 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The evidence of a hoax is crushing. I posted a partial summary of it on a science forum. To see it, google "The Naked Scientist". In the "New Theories" section there's a thread entitled "Did we land on the moon?". The post is on page 15. It's the 7th one from the top.
Cosmored3 2 years ago
@UNTC321 A fourth astronaut was left behind to shoot the liftoff, and was told to wait there until Apollo 12 pick him up.
Simboiss 11 months ago
@Simboiss Yeah thats right mate, because all cameras cannot possibly function without a human personally carrying the thing.
Hmmm, wait a minute. could it be that the camera was mounted on the LRV and remotely controlled?!?!?when china gets there in 2020 i pray to god that they visit one of the apollo sites and finally silence all these fucking skeptic whores.
apologies if your statement was just a little joke and you were not implying that this footage was faked.
amor987654321 9 months ago
@amor987654321 That's not the point.
Simboiss 6 months ago
how did they link up with the mother ship?
vladika07 2 years ago
How did they link up with the "mother ship" (the Apollo command module) ...
Both ships have docking ports. They went into lunar orbit and connected the two ships together. Then they left the lander behind and came home in the command module.
They practiced docking in space as early as some of the Gemini orbiter missions several years earlier.
nesokretep 2 years ago
I just took the 'out-the-window' shot and overlayed it onto the satellite shot taken by the LRO,
and give or take some distortion because of the angle that the LEM was at, whaddya know? Perfect match. The flag and the footprints are all in the exact same spot.
When will people finally stop thinking this was faked??
Zebonka 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
when evidence is provided
xismxist 2 years ago
You are a fucktard.
Tommyr 2 years ago
only when they can go up there and stick their own tongues on the frozen lander platforms, just before their heads explode from the lack of pressure.
ftutbs 2 years ago
@Zebonka What's your point? Yes, it matches, so what? There was information available on the Moon surface in the 60s.
Simboiss 11 months ago
@Simboiss -- You say that there was information available on the moon's surface in the 60's.
So ... where did that information come from?
Oh ... so you need to trust NASA, on that? OK. Perfect logic.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep That's right, the logic is flawed because NASA provides everything. Nothing comes from the outside.
Simboiss 11 months ago
@Simboiss Very much comes from the "outside", as for example the trackings of the rockets and the spaceships, by both radar and radio. And the moonrocks that all the international scientists who have examined them, say are genuin.
YDDES 11 months ago
@Simboiss I may be mistaken, but i believe there is an indian satellite, chandraay-1 or sum shit which has confirmed the landing sites of the apollo missions where various shit was left behind i.e. descent stage, LRV etc.
amor987654321 9 months ago
@Simboiss -- And yes, the 7000 pounds of fuel in the ascent module only had to burn for 9 minutes to accelerate the thing to the 4,000 miles per hour lunar orbital velocity.
And yes, it is very plain to see that there is plenty of room in the LM ascent stage for 7,000 pounds of fuel.
These things are easy to figure out.
That you would call it a "firecracker" and joke about its ability to reach lunar orbit just shows you don't actually care to understand the thing.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@nesokretep That's OK. The numbers work. Numbers are easy to fake, especially when it's numbers that can't be verified. We are talking about a module that is allegedly at several hundreds of thousands of km, in an unknown, unreproducible environment. Theoretical calculations are easy to create.
Simboiss 11 months ago
@Simboiss -- No.
The numbers for the acceleration and energy needed for taking the LM ascent module from the surface to orbit are very easy to verify.
They are completely impossible to "fake."
That you think the environment is "unknown" just because it is "way out in space somewhere" (or whatever silly mystical notion you have about it) just shows --again-- that you don't actually care to know anything for real on the subject.
nesokretep 11 months ago
@Simboiss Just because ONE little part of the whole project COULD be "faked" in Your opinion, that doesn't mean that all the other parts (and thereby the whole project), that couldn't be "faked" were actually fakes.
YDDES 11 months ago
who is holding the camera?
patton9 2 years ago
It is mounted on the LRV with has a "pan & scan" platform controlled by Houston ground.
XmegaPresident 2 years ago
its battery?
patton9 2 years ago
There is a 110 amp hour battery that was powering the high gain for the TV camera. There was about 78 amp hours left on it when lift off occurred. (The TV camera lasted about 3 days after)
XmegaPresident 2 years ago
Are you a scientist?
patton9 2 years ago
I am knowledgeable in astronomy, physics and the history of humans learning about the cosmos.
XmegaPresident 2 years ago
You might want to learn about the new organization. U.N.S.C.
patton9 2 years ago
Dumb question. I mean really.
upandadam1959 2 years ago
If it was a hoax it would have been rumbled years ago.
micktheharp14 2 years ago
maydayfire has been watching entirely TOO much science fiction.
AcidFlashGordon 2 years ago
matches perfectly with the new lro apollo 17 pic,everything matches up check it out!~
cripplewoox 2 years ago 2
how come there is no booster exhaust as if it is jerked up by a cable?!
maydayfire 2 years ago
Exhaust only appers (is visable) in atmospheres.
shit2theface 2 years ago
''how come there is no booster exhaust'' - mayday
Exhaust? In SPACE??? Haha, because they used a chemical propellent that doesn't require a spark, you can't have a 'fire' in space.
TonyN737 2 years ago
Yes you can . The propellant ingredients supply the oxygen rather than the atmosphere. That is what rocket propellant is.
C'mon, like this is simple basic science.
At least try a bit harder or read a book or something.
SparkyMcBiff 2 years ago
Yes -- there was oxygen in the Aerozine 50 fuel used for the LEM...
...HOWEVER, Aerozine 50 burns almost invisibly in the near vacuum of space (or the near vacuum of the lunar surface).
Not all rocket fuels burn with a "fiery/smokey" exhaust plume -- especially in a vacuum. Aerozine 50 burning on Earth would have a visible exhaust, but that's only because of the thick atmosphere.
Bent41 2 years ago
@Bent41 Having invisible booster propellant is VERY convenient when you want to hide the fact that the module was lift up by a crane.
Simboiss 11 months ago
@Simboiss, hypergolic ignition systems are VERY common, because it is convenient when you want to store your fuels for long periods and you want to be able to turn on or shot off your burn without an external ignition system--you just mix the fuels. Are you suggesting every common use of a hypergolic system is false? Do you have better system to recommend NASA use to do what they needed to do? Look carefully and you'll see visible ignition for a brief moment, then clear. That's how it works.
LunarTuner 11 months ago
@LunarTuner That's right. We can see a brief ignition at the start.
Simboiss 11 months ago
@Simboiss are u fucking serious? thats just how shit works mate. its science. the hyperbolic fuels used do not show a visible flame when burnt in a vacuum. just because something doesnt comply with your expectations doesnt mean its fake. fuck off skeptics. all your bullshit theories have been debunked. STOP. WASTING.YOUR.FUCKING.TIME. the moon landings have been confirmed.
amor987654321 9 months ago
@amor987654321 We don't care about the flame, it's all about the crane...
Simboiss 6 months ago
you cant?! watch: Man On The Moon? Part 2: Stock NASA Footage
xismxist 2 years ago
"How come there is no booster exhaust"?
A better question would be: If they faked it, why would they not put in "booster exhaust?" Hollywood movies of space ships had been made with "booster exhaust" for at least 30 years by then.
If they were gonna fake it, they surely would have remembered to put in the exhaust!!
You don't see any exhaust because it was not visible. Why would it be visible? It's only lifting about 2000 pounds. Probly less than 5PSI pressure out the nozzle.
nesokretep 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
space conquest = TOTAL LIE.
ISS = Apollo = studio production,
For the tricks used to stage the rest begin here:
Google
Space Shuttle MattMarriott
Truth666 2 years ago
Are you in Taliban country? Stay there...
globenavigator 2 years ago
you are a whore
w580ifan 2 years ago
I love this. Doubters are always saying, "If they went to the moon, why don't they take pictures of the Apollo landing sites from an orbiting probe or something?"
There you have it at :19
If you won't believe that image of the A-17 decent stage sitting on the lunar surface, why would you believe any other shot?
LunarTuner 2 years ago
@LunarTuner It's all from NASA. Therefore, it can only be used as data, not evidence. That would be like asking a robber to provide all the evidence of the crime.
Simboiss 11 months ago