As far as anything left or placed on the surface of the moon, all could have been done by unmanned spacecraft or probes flying over the moon and dropping it to the surface. Even by a roving probe dropped to the surface and then driven off into a crater or to the darkside.
When NASA admitted several years ago that all plans no longer exsisted for all Apollo missions, that's when flags went up for many people. They said it was all destroyed because they had no room to store it????!!!! Huh?
This video the idiots in it, Gray or what ever his name is, is so laughable.
Showing all of NASA's fuck-ups, why not show just one of the many many successful flights of the LLRV.
Ed White was the jewel of NASA, the Grissom thing is just sad and despicable.
I dare anyone to name just one thing prohibitive about Apollo or space travel, just one. Haven't met a hoaxtard yet that I haven't or could'nt refute with simple logic.
Grissom didn't belief and was convinced the Apollo project would not succeed....before they sent the first crew into a fake world performance he had to die......he was considered trouble...It was the decade of easy killing....between 1960 and 1970 there was a guy in charge that didn't care much about a human life. M.L King, Kennedy, Grissom and a lot of other 'trouble' got murdered.
Grissom didn't belief and was convinced the Apollo project would not succeed....before they sent the first crew into a fake world performance he had to die......he was considered trouble...
Throughout mankinds history it has been, 5% of the population that invents and engineer ideas. 15% that can understand and implement the idea or technology. 80% do the grunt work or don't understand. Look at the technology around you today...80% have no idea how it works. WE WENT TO THE MOON! The Hoaxers can not understand.
Im just curious on the first statement, "nasa didnt spend any money in space", well how the fuk are they gonna do that its not like there a fukin starbucks up there
Just look at the lunar photographs from the Project Apollo Image Gallery. Look at all of the evidence. These were not taken in a studio and It'd be nice if some Navy photo intelligence specialists studied them carefully and gauged the distances evident, especially in the panorama pics. If NASA were hoaxing, you'd think they would minimize the photographic library, not shoot so many pictures and then offer them free to the world without copyright restraints. Why six hoax landings instead of one?
of course this is fake moon landing actually no one landed on the moon its fake they make a flim in a industry you can see the flag raise but its moving like air is around but no air is there on moon
I can think of about a dozen reasons in 8th grade science alone why a flimsy piece of cloth would move in a FRICTIONLESS environment. If you cant think of even one, then you obviously failed 8th grade science.
@shahhidd the waving flag theory has been explained over and over and over.........and over again. please, really please can you hoax believers do some research before you start preaching that the landings were "faked"
This is just angering! Referring to NASA workers as "Nazis" when the vast majority of them were American born, patriotic and hard-working is just inflammatory and pathetic. Of course no one wanted the embarrassment of losing astronauts on the moon. But that's just as much a motivation to succeed as anything.
I prefer to get my "abvious" information from someone who knows that its spelled "obvious." Its this level of 3rd grade incompetence that continually shoots your credibility off at the knees. And not that you sounded like a genius anyway. Bringing up 911 just means you believe any conspiracy you hear. Using one conspiracy as proof of another one only proves how stupid BOTH ideas are.
@ACQUAARIA I think your getting mind fucked by ridiculous internet forums. "hey guys lets trust a bunch of retards behind their computer screens instead of the thousands of scientists and scientific backing that confirm the lunar landings took place and then talk about our ridiculous ideas which, because we have seen them on a nice little youtube video, cause science to become irrelevant and totally wrong".
There are actually three sources of light on the moon. The sun, the earth that reflects the sun's light, and the moon itself, also reflecting light. The albedo (reflectivity) of the earth is quite high because of the amount of clouds, so the sun acted as the light filler via the earth. And the moon was, to say the least, rather close, and also reflected light.
I've seen no proof of "fake" that wasnt do to error or misunderstanding. All "evidence" comes from lousy reading into the explanations. There's an explanation for everything, but you have to find it. NASA isnt going to pound on your door with a gift-wrapped present. Minimal effort on your part is needed.
Everything you listed were the typical cut and pastes from any nickel and dime webpage, They all have numerous debunks already set and ready, findable with google. Debunks which you SAID you already read.
So why are you reinventing the wheel? Had you really read the debunks as you claimed you would have given those and said "They're wrong because..."
So any good reason I shouldnt believe you've been caught in a lie?
No, what I talked about is from my own observation, I didn't anybody else make these observations; and these observations have never been debunked.
And I have plenty of other observations which have never been debunked.
The Apollo believers have brought very little answers before the great mass of anomalies which have been pointed out by the moon hoaxers; and even the anomalies for which they think to have explanations, these explanations are more than imperfect.
If you think your claims havent been debunked then you havent done a dimes worth of reading on anything.
"Incorrect Shadows" for example is forced perspective, looking at one dimensional shadows cast over a 3D surface, to name one example. What debunking webpages are you claiming to have read?
A few of your claims I've never even heard of, making them suspect. It takes more to make 'evidence' than a random claim of fake from an unqualified amatuer speaking out of his profession
Those who make the demonstrations don't make the difference between the shadows seen longitudinally and the shadows seen laterally, and this difference is very important; when the shadows are seen longitudinally they converge or diverge (according to the fact they are seen from the rear of the front), but they are much more parallel when seen laterally.
I have yet to see those claims from any other source, meaning I have no reason to believe they've been vetted. I'm sick of hoax amatuers without a days experience pretending to be engineers and geologists. With my own experience as a Physicist, I havent seen any "evidence" that wasnt due entirely to the error or misunderstanding of the hoax pusher. So do you have any proper authority to corroborate these claims?
Other than the shadows, thats old hat and long rebuted.
The shadow thing usually implies that there were two lightsources. Well, you dont need to have worked in Hollywood (which I did a long while back) to know that how can you have 2 lightsources without two shadows? Try it yourself with 2 lights. Look at any TV show shot on a stage. Even the old Star Treks, you see the actors with 2 shadows all the time. So why didnt Apollo have them?
No, I have never implied that there were two light sources; I just think that there is one big projector; it is possble that occasionally some small secondary light sources have been used, but in such a way not to produce a double shadow.
Hunch....This troll SpreadingtheIgnorance or whatever he is called, is no scientist. He is not a physicist, not a teahcer and I dont believe he is a personal friend of George Lucas either. He makes all these claims and then simply refutes any hoax theory with basic scientific knowledge. When that doesn't work he begins the insults. Anything he cant answer he simply ignores...Just ask this troll to produce one document concerning his credential and he goes away..Waste of time
Uh oh, did someone get their widdle feelings hurt? ;)
And now you're charging from board to board with white-knuckle fury of I'M GONNA GET EM! hehehehe That sure showed me. ;)
"refutes with basic scientific knowledge" Uh huh. Thats how it usually works. Science beats paranoia ;) My way is an infinite improvement over YOUR way, with
Me: "Science says this"
You: "Well...you...you...YOU SUCK!"
MY GOD! I had no idea your research was quote so extensive.
My profile says I "met" George Lucas. Quite a claim.
uh oh, one of the movies on my page shows how that happened... oops ;)
You mean its usually a good idea to read to research before opening your mouth like a tard? I cant imagine why the "hoax" is so dependent on mcjob 39-year-old losers like you ;)
Because when you place a light source too close to two objects, these ones will receive its light under different angles, unlike when the light source is distant.
This explains why some shadows diverge when they shouldn't because they are seen laterally, and when shadows are seen laterally they are parallel.
And the diverging shadows have been explained by uneven terrain. People base belief on "parallel" shadows making unrealistic assumptions about totally flat ground. The moon is neither flat nor unobstructed. There's a great deal written on this in the various debunking webpages. You should read them so you can make a counter-argument fully aware of whats already been discussed and refuted.
How much original work do you honestly think exists on the "hoax?" For no matter which hoax groupie I talk to, on any forum, all we ever hear are the same 3-4 talking points over and over.
If you've really read the debunking then explain why its wrong. I know what YOU claim. And I know the response to your claim (Bad Astronomy webpage, run by an astronomer, is an excellent source), but whats your response to their response? No hoax groupie ever tells me that.
The demonstrations of the mythbusters are ridiculous, pathetic, they prove nothing.
Making believe that a projector placed close behaves ike the sun is a lie.
The flapping flag in the demonstration of the mythbusters doesn't flap the same way as on the Apollo videos; in the Apollo videos it doesn't flap in a regular way at all, not from inertia.
I live in a real world, not in a world made from delusion.
The Saturn V was hardly a 'big version of the Nazi V-2 killing machine'. It was a multi-stage, multi-engine design with a different fuel system and propellant, life support, and a far higher performance envelope requiring massive structural changes both internal and external. The ONLY similarity is the primary designer: Wernher von Braun. Good grief, to try to discredit Apollo by mocking the ROCKET?!
Graduated from high school or college? Given your age it could be either one. But do have a good reason for not believing? And did you ever research your reason to see what the rebuttal is? And to see if that rebuttal makes more sense? Most hoax believers I run into dont go to that effort, and it would be easy on everyone if they did so we could talk about things scientifically.
I have graduated from a superior engineer school of aerinautics, in which I have been taught all disciplines, including electronics and computer science.
And yes, I have done a great deal of research on the Apollo journal: Photos, videos, computer, electronics, mechanics of the flight, nothing makes sense, everything is incoherent.
Thats rather vague claim. Can you be more specific than "Everything?"
Give a specific instance, then give the rebuttal for it, which you claim to have read, and then explain why the rebuttal doesnt work.
If this works out, we can have a real-rip-roaring engineering debate. My disciplines are all aspects of Physical Science, Math, and Radiation. I once showed a hoax film to my class of high school physics students and they shot it to pieces. I want to know what they missed.
Governments will lie about anything, if they believe that they can get away with it. In the case of the moon, it was easy to make up any story they liked. After all, there is no way that Joe Public can check up on the official truth.
This is a useless discussing, even if somebody proves there is a false video, this fact wouldn´t imply that trips to Moon were false, simply, the issue is out of reaching of common people. I think, this is another way for advertising to NASA.
But the mythbusters said NONE of the missions were fake.
Besides, doing 1 real and then faking the other 5 makes no sense. Thats 5 times to exposed the fake when they already went for real. Why risk the real shot with a bunch of fake ones? They already had the moonrocks from the first mission, thats always been the best evidence and proves we went.
non7b, you suggest there should be stars visible while on the moon, but in your video you show spacewalks that presumably you believe were real, but there are no stars visible in those spacewalks! You prove yourself wrong. If they're not seen on spacewalks (on the daylight side of the earth), they should not be seen on the moon either.
That fake lunar surface looks NOTHING like the Apollo photos! This film is nothing but theory and conjecture..."could be" junk. Training equipment does not equal a fake.
Grissom was NOT a vocal critic, but occasionally showed impatience because he LOVED NASA. EVERY success has problems along the way! I'd think it was fake if they DID NOT!
Calling the Saturn V a big version of the V2 is just comical! This is amateurish junk.
yeah,yeah, and the world is still flat, NASA have already admitted the did fiddlr/airbrush the photos, i wonder what everyone saw in the bloody sky as the rocket left atmosphere,... a big fart, or maybe an empty icbm, that ,what never crashed, anywhere, and seeing as Russia already had satellite tech, dont you think that they would have KILLED to disprove this landing, funny how they didnt, mmm, but now we have you tube, thats right, us youtubers now EVERYTHING!!!
2) Low self-esteem, and therefore must feel like they know something the rest of us don't to feel better about themselves. Fall victim to category #1. Also usually uneducated (i.e. did not pay attention in the hard classes in school).
This goes for Moon Landing hoaxers, the 9/11 hoaxers, etc.
Really can't put it any simpler than that. They basically have no grasp of physics or logical thinking.
My mother worked for the government during WW2 & they were manufacturing pieces of "something" that they weren't even told wha it was or what it would be-everyone was totally in the dark.Same shit at nasa.
Hoaxers love to claim that 1960s technology was not advanced enough to get us to the moon. If it wasn't advanced enough to get us there, how the heck was it going to be advanced enough to fake something on this scale. You clowns need to make up your minds. If 60s tech wasn't good enouh to do one thing then it wasn't good enough for the other either. To say different reveals a blatant inconsistency in your logic and leaves you looking foolish
Yes that's right. Russia and America are always in competition with each other. All America needed to do was to find some dirt on Russia, or found some atrocity that Russia did, and then blackmailed Russia by telling them that if they don't go along with america's fake moon landing then America will expose some crime/atrocity that russia's done. It's called blackmail and it's very common amoungst world leaders and their individual countries.
Are you kidding? Are there STILL morons out there that believe the moon landings did not happen? LOL You think the Soviet Union would have allowed NASA to get away with that? The Russians and the U.S. were is a fierce race to land a man on the moon. The Russians landed unmanned probes that brought back soil sample and moon rocks, just like Apollo did. Earth to morons - men have walked on the moon, simple as that!
And one another thing: Why the fuck spending so much money to fake something, when from that much money we could evolve more in technology to go wherever we want.. Or at least the nearest planets to us, Why fucking the honest people's money away for these bullshits and lies? Why? And this new Ares thing..I can't belive we return to the fuckin rocket ride man.. Other billions of billions of dollars spending for another useless shit, when we have the anti-gravity from crashed alien crafts?
:D You know, this video shows what human beings are.. Or what human beings aren't.. And why did the russians stand down with their plan to the moon? Cause of they could be only second? Who the fuck cares about the 1st place, when we go to space like 1 race? In space there isn't russians or americans or indians or japanese or whatever..In space there is human race representing itself and it's planet Earth.. It's a big shame that I am the only one of 7billion who think like that..
Why so much hate, learn the truth Neil Armstong take work to get to the Earth you think all it's fake... why did teh us beat the urss... why the Cold War? Fake to? Think
@HuntedFrog Actually the Cold War was very real, but there was no fighting. The Cold War doesn't need to cease to exist to believe that the moon landings were hoaxed. In fact, this is why many believers in the hoaxed moon landing think the US faked to moon landing. They think that the US hoaxed the moon landings to be seen by the USSR as superior. Neil Armstrong's silence on the matter doesn't help the myths go away either.
I am convinced, that this video is a fake. Just look closely at the ear of that man explaining those lunar surface mock-ups. It has completely different color than the rest of his face. He must be faked, noone can have ears like this. There is a major conspiracy going on, wake up, people! Makers of this video spent tremendous sum of cash to create this poorly processed digital image of scientist! What is it good for? THINK! THINK!
"An early attempt to silence Grissom"? Really? If they wanted to silence him, they would have just let him drown. Dumb motherfuckers. I swear, every day hoaxers get stupider.
"There was no guarantee they could land safely without killing the crew".
That implies that there could be a situation in which they land safely, but they all die.
"Big versions of the Nazi's V2 killing machines". Well, in the sense that they are both ROCKETS, yeah. They are.
The best thing about moon hoaxers is that while they have a common ground of "we did go" they usually have varying reasons for why it wasn't possible. Ranging from lack of technology to the Earth being flat.
There isn't one solid movement of uniform, hard facts to support their beliefs.
Has anyone seen the LRO photos? If you are a moon hoaxer and you don't know what LRO is, then you should be ashamed. Go look it up.
So many of these myths have been proven wrong, what new information on this so called conspiracy is actually not explainable? ey u tell me 1 and i bet i can prove it wrong
No logical rational person could possibly believe in the moon landing...only dreamers who believe everything they're told. Even with today's technology...it cant be done
the space shuttle has killed 14 people just going into earths orbit yet is it not more dangerous to go to the moon with the tech of 30 years before so many times and not have any fatalities? plus has any 1 seen the vid of ap.11 were they are clearly seen faking the shot of the earth from 130,000 miles out that is condeming u can see there in earths orbit and the vid is dated like a day before there meant to hav landed on the moon so that is a fact they could not ov gone to the moon!
"Most of it was spent on the ground--not in space." What is that supposed to mean? Is there any other place to spend money but on earth? Hello! These simulator photos don't look ANYTHING like what we finally saw! It's clearly training material! NASA contractors made MUCH more than models and simulators! Where did the Saturn V come from? Wouldn't it have been easier to kill Grisson without destroying a capsule, 2 well-trained astronauts and delaying the program? Makes no sense.
Basic laws of Physics ! am surprised you can spell it ,you are SO wrong every aspect of your so called hoax can be proven to be flawed where do i start " no stars is a good one " how many stars can YOU see in the day well it was daylight on the moon the sky was black because and try and get this through your thick skull, without atmosphere the sky is black.
No atmosphere on the moon you idiot, so the sky is blacker than the blackest night on Earth-even when the sun shining.
Collins claimed that he could not recall seeing any stars even though he was allegedly in orbit around the moon and would have seen the darkest view of the universe - out of the module window - that any man could ever have hoped to have seen while in the moon's shadow, yet this LIAR expects you believe he saw no stars.
Have some respect for yourself and wake up to reality.
Now you dodged my question about how many other "conspiracies" you believe in.
Its a simple enough question, but your reluctance to answer implies that you do in fact believe in a few more, but are shy about expressing your beliefs for fear of more ridicule.
But if your "conspiracies" have evidence and can be proven, then there should be nothing to fear. Since you do fear, thats an admission that you DONT have evidence
And that begs: If you DONT have evidence, then how can you believe them? ;)
Good god man, do you research ANY of this before mouthing off like a naive newb?
Why do you think no professional photographers never bring up these points? Why it is always amatuers and pretenders who've never had a day of education in their life?
How DO you personally justify, to yourself, that you're pretending you're smarter than every EXPERT whose ever looked at these pics?
Thats making a naive assumption (of which we've lost count) of the Earth conveniently being in a photographable position at just the right time.
You may not be aware that the moon does not rotate. That means the Earth holds ONE spot in the sky and never moves. It doesnt rise, doesnt set. Therefore if its too high or too low for a pic, you're not getting a pic.
This is why professional photographers never make your claim, they dont jump to conclusions about what they dont know.
Ya know after they lied about WMDs in Iraq etc I'm starting to consider the denials more seriously. Still find it hard to believe though. Mmmmmmm......
"WMD" is one of the stupidest complaints out there.
IF they really "lied," then why the hell did they pick a "lie" that was so easy to prove wrong? Why didnt they pick a reason that couldnt EVER be proven fake? I've asked that question 50 times and never gotten an answer.
If your college physics teacher didn't believe it then he's an idiot who should be fired and never allowed to teach again, even at the kindergarten level.
He was a tenured full professor and former chairman of the Department, and did a lot of research that was NSF funded. He had such a tremendous enthusiasm and such a take charge personality that some girls fell in love with him. He really had a "can do" attitude about what science and technology can achieve. So, that made it all the more ironic. This was the Physics course for Physics majors.
Hmmm..., that got posted, so it looks like something fishy is going on. Anyway, just search for the vid titled "Apollo 14 LM lift-off and CSM docking".
I've tried a number of times to post a link to a film of the LM docking with the CSM, but I keep getting blocked. I suspect that mooninquirer knows about that film and has configured things somehow to prevent it being posted here. Is that possible?
Says the man with 40 years of conspiracy innuendo and hearsay with nothing to show for it. ;)
I'm not here to convince YOU. I'm here to demonstrate to the casual lurker how quickly hoax pushers fail to present fact and change the subject whenever faced with a losing argument.
Shall I repeat, again, the topics you've dropped after being challenged only once? ;)
I actually think I might learn something from you, especially about the college physics texts. But I doubt that you are going to be convincing anyone else. Most people just watch the video and do not read the comments.
Thats polar opposite of what I've found, that people ignore the video and just read whatever "excitement" is going on in the comment section.
Now if you want to "learn" something, you can. You only need to ask questions you have an honest intent of listening to the answers too, not questions of "gotcha" or cut and pastes from hoax webpages.
Why should it matter where the questions came from, or whether they are "gotcha" questions ? One who is telling the truth should have no fear of any "gotcha" question.
"gotchas" are not asked for enlightenment. They're asked for attack purposes, where the asker already knows what he "thinks" is the answer, and is using a "question" as a cover for a hidden insult or biased agenda. Any such question is NOT legitimate.
"No photos of the LEM" is not an honest question. For, I seriously doubt that you personally scoured each and every photo looking for it. No, you cut and paste the claim from a dork webpage and repeated it as would-be "AH HA!" moment, trying to trump up a phony charge with "evidence" you're hardly qualified to present, let alone judge. I am not impressed by "manufactured" outrage.
Are you talking about the rejoining with the orbiter, or the docking ? It is just that I do not see that being on TV. It also was not part of NASA's documentary "Apollo 11 The flight of the Eagle" They used an animation to show the docking. What do you think about the footage that "fundiebasher" referred to ? Does NASA claim that that is real footahge, or is it a re-construction ?
Actually, this particular complaint is something I haven't seen anyone else bring up.
"fundiebasher" referred to it. If it wasn't from NASA, who did it ?
There were SIX man-to-the-moon missions, and even the moon buggy. But you would think that they would have footage of the docking, which, if it happened WOULD be spectacular.
The LM would have had to be extremely accurate in its maneuverability to do that.
How DID it maneuver at all ? Where are the retro rockets ? The top part of the LM is just a gold foil colored thing. Did it HAVE TO manuever at all ?
You keep ignoring that the only way to get footage of the docking would be from OUTSIDE both ships, meaning a risky spacewalk for no better reason than a publicity stunt.
They didnt do it for very predictable reasons, such as it had ALREADY BEEN DONE in previous apollos and by the russians. AND who cares about a docking when you've got footage of a moon buggy?
I know damn well if they COULDNT produce footage of the buggy you'd whine about that. You're just cherry picking your outrage.
I am very unimpressed with that buggy----and that is a whole question in itself. The buggy tooling around on the "surface of the moon" looks just like a dune buggy, including the sand being kicked up. If it were in moon gravity, that sand would go much higher. Further, it looks like it was in an air environment, because of the "rooster tail" shape on that kicked up sand. Without air, it would be very parabolic shaped.
Further, I think NASA overplayed their hand with the moon buggy
I presume you can provide the calculations to back that up, instead of appearing to just make a flying guess based on physics you've already admitted to having no education in.
I SEE a parabolic arc, not a rooster tail. Which relegates your complaint to yet more of the "kooks see what they want to see" category, wherein we're inundated with scientific illiteracy from amateurs with nary a professional in sight.
It was described as a "rooster tail" by the astronauts themselves. Look at your statement here-----you provide neither calculations, nor an argument that, despite the one-sixth gravity, the sand being kicked up by the astronauts or the buggy would be the SAME HEIGHT as on Earth. You don't "get" to just say it looks fine, because you claim to have taught college physics.
My college physics professor said it was a hoax. He was a full professor and did valuable NSF research on magnetism.
Thats hardly a technical term and you know it. Any idiot can see the video for themselves and trace the parabolic arc with their own finger.
Now YOU'RE the quack here. Its up to you to prove the dust is WRONG before I'm obliged to prove its right. The landing is established fact by the people qualified to judge, and it cant be refuted by merely saying "looks wrong" by any mere youtard amatuer.
"You don't "get" to just say it looks fine, because you claim to have taught college physics."
The hell if I dont. Those of us who've put in the time and done the work and have the experience are always SO worried about the opinion of illiterate amatuers who havent done anything worth a DAMN. When you get 7 years of schooling and have taught 10 subjects and work 60 hour weeks, then you can make an opinion without getting laughed at.
"My college physics professor said it was a hoax."
Then he's a flaming idiot, and I'll call him that to his face.
In fact send him my physics videos so he can see me personally.
I've only taught Physics and Chemistry and Astronomy and Earth Sci and Calculus, and now work in a Nuclear Engineering Plant. So if you're going to drag him into a juvenile battle of the resumes you better make damn sure he's ready.
I don't believe mooninquirer's claim that his college physics professor said the landings were a hoax. If he did, he must be some sort of barely qualified affirmative-action type. He clearly should not be teaching.
Your mind is clearly already made up----you know it is a hoax, but you do not want that fact to get out to others, so you say a person even QUESTIONING the moon landing must be retarded or crazy.
I challenge others, who are taking physics in college, or know someone who is, to ask their professor about the moon walk, and SEE what he / she says.
Anyone "QUESTIONING" the moonlanding is likely stupid or crazy, for the very simple reason that there is no legitimate question to be asked.
Speaking from my own direct experience in physics and such, I have read or heard of NO question whatsoever that wasnt entirely based on the illiteracy, error, or outright bias of the hoax pusher.
You've had 40 years to find anything and have accomplished absolutely nothing. Your chance is over.
Actually, in 37 years, there have been no manned missions by any country higher than 300 miles, but the moon is over 200,000 miles away from Earth. Further, what has the science or technology that has come out of it ?
And if you're saying thats synonymous with technological stagnation, you're as uninformed as you are inexperienced.
Going to the moon was ONE goal. And we did it, great. Then we made OTHER goals:
6 shuttles, 2 space stations, 12 mars rovers etc etc. All that lead to satellites, GPS, etc etc.
So we can learn and achieve all that NEW stuff, or waste 37 years doing the exact same thing over and over and over to satisfy the ignorance of rank amatuers.
Are you in any position to say technology HASNT come out of it? Are you educated enough to even recognize it if you saw it? Or is your 'expertise' limited to asking ignorance driven gotcha questions?
Everyone, ask your college physics professor, or someone you know who is taking a college course in physics. And how could a physics professor NOT discuss the moon hoax, when gravity is taught ? Students would ask why there is no evidence of one-sixth gravity in the Apollo footage, since the moon has a gravity one-sixth that of the Earth. There are other examples, like why the LM didn't tip over on landing, like in this video in the prototype at 6:13
LEM didn't tip over like in the little model you show being THROWN sideways because the lateral motion was zero when it landed, and your claim there is NO evidence of 1/6 G in the Apollo footage is ridiculous, everything they film on the moon's surface is evidence of the low gravity. Obviously you are insane and we are done with you.
Thank you for verifying my prediction of what you would say.
And, HOW did lateral motion stop ?
This is why it is NOT discussed in "Fundamentals of Physics" by Halliday and Resnick. There is a chapter on gravity, and a lot of discussion of the moon and pictures. Now, if the astronauts could easily jump 15 ft, or descend the LM with just their hands ( they weighed about 62 lbs with their packs on the moon ), that would be a GREAT picture, to discuss that one-sixth gravity.
Again, thank you for revealing the agenda that moon landing propagandists are trying to push. It must be VERY valuable to you, because you are getting so angry, and want to discourage people from finding the truth. As i said, everyone, ask your physics professor. God, you sure want that war with Iran, don't you ?
THANK GOD we have scientifically illiterate hoax gluttons to tell us what the "truth" is. I almost listened to a professional engineer who actually, like, works for a living. ;)
And as the only physics professor on this board, I can say from experience than any "hoax" claim is a victim of its own ignorance incompetence. There is no legitimate evidence of any "hoax." Only newbs who push cut and pastes ten years past their education level.
OK---NOW you are a professor again. I thought you said you are now working in a Nuclear Engineering Plant. You ALSO said that you taught high school. Do you have a certification ?
Since you're intent on asking (to coddle your paranoia no doubt), I spent 15 years as an educator in public schools and universities, switching to Nuclear work only fairly recently.
However, I do in fact still have a teaching credential in Mathematics and ALL the Physical Sciences.
And my highest degree is a Masters. ;)
Well now, shall we hear about YOUR stupendous life now? I have a suspicion you've already lost the resume contest. ;)
Actually, you wanted to have a resume contest with my physics professor. You are the one constantly shooting your mouth off about your technical and scientific expertise.
My physics professor was Jack Crow at Florida State. May he RIP. I feel very honored to have had a full year course ( the honors section of Physics ) with such a distinguished scientist. Look him up.
Needless to say, he had a Ph.D., and was a full tenured professor. He also was the best teacher I ever had.
Because, unlike hoax quacks and wannabes, I HAVE technical and scientific expertise. I've done the research and gotten the experience whereas they only GUESS at physics and flounder at science. You for example. I've asked you repeatedly to detail your own qualifications and you've stalled every time. You've have no qualification to discuss anything about the 8th grade than the average Mcjob.
Newbies like you who pretend to be something they're not will be confronted.
If he was tenured, does that mean he was one of those idiots who was immune to being fired no matter incompetent he was in the classroom? ;)
And now he's conveniently dead, so we have only your word for how "good" he was, which is likely bias of him telling you exactly what you wanted to hear.
Unfortunately, I'm far more capable of proving my own expertise than this yutz can even prove he existed. I have educational physics films uploaded right here, which you've ignored repeadedly ;)
Really ? Well, you claim that you taught an astronomy class at the college level. You claimed the astronomy textbook covered the moon walk from A to Z. What was the science that was learned from landing a man on the moon ? Does that astronomy textbook say, for example, " we know that stars are not visible from the moon as a result of the Apollo missions." And what is the title and author of this astronomy textbook you used in teaching that class ?
Going to the moon was an exercise in using the science we already had, to prove we were smart enough and achieved enough to do it. It was meant for the accomplishment, not the learning.
Now I asked you before what point you thought you were making and you didnt answer, more or less proving that you DONT have a point with this. Its just another juvenile gotcha stall as you ran out of dork talking points a week ago. ;)
You say that it was in using the science we already had----but what about that rocket lander that Neil Armstrong ejected from and crashed ? The technology for a rocket lander did NOT exist.
So, you admit that there was NO science learned from the moon landing ? You said before that your astronomy text discusses it from A to Z.
I SAID the primary mission of the landing was to prove that we could do it. I never said nothing was learned. ;)
Its these time-wasting hair-splitting innuendos that you're obsessed with gorging yourself on that only prove you have nothing credible to discuss. This is just a dumb attempt of yours to save face in an argument you're way over your head in.
Textbook Astronomy: A Beginner's Guide to the Universe with MasteringAstronomy (6th Edition) Paperback Edition: 6 Author: Eric Chaisson, Steve McMillan Publisher: Benjamin Cummings Release Date: July 2009 ISBN-10: 0321598768 ISBN-13: 9780321598769 Pretty sure thats the one. That class was 8 year ago. I had an earlier edition obviously. But yet again, SO WHAT? What moronic point are you insistent on making? That the book doesnt exist? Or that ASTRONOMY doesnt exist? ;)
WELL THANK GOD. Shall we inform the authors about your prestigious review of their work? And you're actually going to buy the thing?
Now you ignored my earlier question about your motivation. IS IT YOUR CONTENTION that any science book, no matter the subject, that doesnt mention the moonlanding is giving a subliminal hint that it was fake?
What-----are you NOW saying that your astronomy textbook does NOT discuss the moonlanding from A to Z ? I didn't say that I would write a review of that book.
what the hell would you know anything about the moon landing!!!!!!! YOUR FRICKEN BRITISH YOU NEVER LANDED ON THE MOON!!!
and all of the Americans who believe in this crap go away you have no friends, so go back upstairs and get your mom to make you some more fishsticks
P4STEYSK8er 2 days ago
The secret Hillhead Observatory has classified information to PROVE that NASA lies.
sleazylagoon 6 days ago
stars could be ated but i looked at the russian moon photos and if you loook closly u can see stars
MrTora120 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As far as anything left or placed on the surface of the moon, all could have been done by unmanned spacecraft or probes flying over the moon and dropping it to the surface. Even by a roving probe dropped to the surface and then driven off into a crater or to the darkside.
When NASA admitted several years ago that all plans no longer exsisted for all Apollo missions, that's when flags went up for many people. They said it was all destroyed because they had no room to store it????!!!! Huh?
thexrayman50 2 months ago
This video the idiots in it, Gray or what ever his name is, is so laughable.
Showing all of NASA's fuck-ups, why not show just one of the many many successful flights of the LLRV.
Ed White was the jewel of NASA, the Grissom thing is just sad and despicable.
I dare anyone to name just one thing prohibitive about Apollo or space travel, just one. Haven't met a hoaxtard yet that I haven't or could'nt refute with simple logic.
Tweekerhead 4 months ago
Grissom didn't belief and was convinced the Apollo project would not succeed....before they sent the first crew into a fake world performance he had to die......he was considered trouble...It was the decade of easy killing....between 1960 and 1970 there was a guy in charge that didn't care much about a human life. M.L King, Kennedy, Grissom and a lot of other 'trouble' got murdered.
Za7a7aZ 5 months ago
Grissom didn't belief and was convinced the Apollo project would not succeed....before they sent the first crew into a fake world performance he had to die......he was considered trouble...
Za7a7aZ 5 months ago
@Za7a7aZ Grissom was murdered by government agents.
sleazylagoon 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Throughout mankinds history it has been, 5% of the population that invents and engineer ideas. 15% that can understand and implement the idea or technology. 80% do the grunt work or don't understand. Look at the technology around you today...80% have no idea how it works. WE WENT TO THE MOON! The Hoaxers can not understand.
inotnad 7 months ago
america is a fake
tiziouzou2000 8 months ago
Will space radiation have an effect on undeveloped rolls of photographic film?
UnSlaved4ever 8 months ago
and yes, we did land on the moon. there is the truth you want.
amor987654321 9 months ago
if we didnt land on the moon then how do you explain ALL the NASA missions?
highwalker339 9 months ago
Yes, we did.
GlowWorm1962 9 months ago
Im just curious on the first statement, "nasa didnt spend any money in space", well how the fuk are they gonna do that its not like there a fukin starbucks up there
loosenuts5000 10 months ago
Just look at the lunar photographs from the Project Apollo Image Gallery. Look at all of the evidence. These were not taken in a studio and It'd be nice if some Navy photo intelligence specialists studied them carefully and gauged the distances evident, especially in the panorama pics. If NASA were hoaxing, you'd think they would minimize the photographic library, not shoot so many pictures and then offer them free to the world without copyright restraints. Why six hoax landings instead of one?
Purpleplanetar17 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Purpleplanetar17 look up van allen from wiki
robomanus 5 months ago
of course this is fake moon landing actually no one landed on the moon its fake they make a flim in a industry you can see the flag raise but its moving like air is around but no air is there on moon
shahhidd 11 months ago
@shahhidd
I can think of about a dozen reasons in 8th grade science alone why a flimsy piece of cloth would move in a FRICTIONLESS environment. If you cant think of even one, then you obviously failed 8th grade science.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@shahhidd the waving flag theory has been explained over and over and over.........and over again. please, really please can you hoax believers do some research before you start preaching that the landings were "faked"
amor987654321 9 months ago
This is just angering! Referring to NASA workers as "Nazis" when the vast majority of them were American born, patriotic and hard-working is just inflammatory and pathetic. Of course no one wanted the embarrassment of losing astronauts on the moon. But that's just as much a motivation to succeed as anything.
LunarTuner 11 months ago
actually You don't need all these evidents to know that moon landings have been faked -
You just need to watch Your world today and then "look" into Your heart and what You know already ... it all is so abvious !
Same procedure than 911 faked pictures and mind manipulations by media which were presented to us.
Funny, but it prooves itself, that 911 fake had been done even more dilettante than Apollo hoax.
People Wake Up! OPEN YOUR OWN EYES & MIND !!!
Stop getting mind fucked by Media !!!
ACQUAARIA 1 year ago
@ACQUAARIA
I prefer to get my "abvious" information from someone who knows that its spelled "obvious." Its this level of 3rd grade incompetence that continually shoots your credibility off at the knees. And not that you sounded like a genius anyway. Bringing up 911 just means you believe any conspiracy you hear. Using one conspiracy as proof of another one only proves how stupid BOTH ideas are.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@ACQUAARIA I think your getting mind fucked by ridiculous internet forums. "hey guys lets trust a bunch of retards behind their computer screens instead of the thousands of scientists and scientific backing that confirm the lunar landings took place and then talk about our ridiculous ideas which, because we have seen them on a nice little youtube video, cause science to become irrelevant and totally wrong".
cunt.
amor987654321 9 months ago
There are actually three sources of light on the moon. The sun, the earth that reflects the sun's light, and the moon itself, also reflecting light. The albedo (reflectivity) of the earth is quite high because of the amount of clouds, so the sun acted as the light filler via the earth. And the moon was, to say the least, rather close, and also reflected light.
Synthetrix 1 year ago
can someone please tell me WHY America would fake the moon landing, what is their motive for faking it?
BlackXBo 1 year ago
@BlackXBo America and the masters that control this country are the masters of deception, don't be naive, question everything around you,,,, 911
rosahairsalon 1 year ago
@BlackXBo
What is the motive for faking it?
It's a good way of manipulating people, to make them forget other concerns, to impose an image of winning conquerant.
There can be many motives for faking it, and it has been faked indeed, there is more than proof about it.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
I've seen no proof of "fake" that wasnt do to error or misunderstanding. All "evidence" comes from lousy reading into the explanations. There's an explanation for everything, but you have to find it. NASA isnt going to pound on your door with a gift-wrapped present. Minimal effort on your part is needed.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
No, there are real undeniable incoherencies.
How do yoyu explain the repetitive mud spots in some thirty photos in Apollo 16?
How do you explain the nail in the fork in Apollo 16, which fork miraculously stands up without being sustained by anything.
How do you explain some missing shadows, incorrect reflections in the visor?
How do you explain contradictory rotations, incoherent changes of size.
The incoherencies really exist, they are not imaginary.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
"how do you explain" Ok this got shot down fast.
Everything you listed were the typical cut and pastes from any nickel and dime webpage, They all have numerous debunks already set and ready, findable with google. Debunks which you SAID you already read.
So why are you reinventing the wheel? Had you really read the debunks as you claimed you would have given those and said "They're wrong because..."
So any good reason I shouldnt believe you've been caught in a lie?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
No, what I talked about is from my own observation, I didn't anybody else make these observations; and these observations have never been debunked.
And I have plenty of other observations which have never been debunked.
The Apollo believers have brought very little answers before the great mass of anomalies which have been pointed out by the moon hoaxers; and even the anomalies for which they think to have explanations, these explanations are more than imperfect.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
If you think your claims havent been debunked then you havent done a dimes worth of reading on anything.
"Incorrect Shadows" for example is forced perspective, looking at one dimensional shadows cast over a 3D surface, to name one example. What debunking webpages are you claiming to have read?
A few of your claims I've never even heard of, making them suspect. It takes more to make 'evidence' than a random claim of fake from an unqualified amatuer speaking out of his profession
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
No, the claims have not been properly debunked.
Those who make the demonstrations don't make the difference between the shadows seen longitudinally and the shadows seen laterally, and this difference is very important; when the shadows are seen longitudinally they converge or diverge (according to the fact they are seen from the rear of the front), but they are much more parallel when seen laterally.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
I have yet to see those claims from any other source, meaning I have no reason to believe they've been vetted. I'm sick of hoax amatuers without a days experience pretending to be engineers and geologists. With my own experience as a Physicist, I havent seen any "evidence" that wasnt due entirely to the error or misunderstanding of the hoax pusher. So do you have any proper authority to corroborate these claims?
Other than the shadows, thats old hat and long rebuted.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
The shadow thing usually implies that there were two lightsources. Well, you dont need to have worked in Hollywood (which I did a long while back) to know that how can you have 2 lightsources without two shadows? Try it yourself with 2 lights. Look at any TV show shot on a stage. Even the old Star Treks, you see the actors with 2 shadows all the time. So why didnt Apollo have them?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
No, I have never implied that there were two light sources; I just think that there is one big projector; it is possble that occasionally some small secondary light sources have been used, but in such a way not to produce a double shadow.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
Hunch....This troll SpreadingtheIgnorance or whatever he is called, is no scientist. He is not a physicist, not a teahcer and I dont believe he is a personal friend of George Lucas either. He makes all these claims and then simply refutes any hoax theory with basic scientific knowledge. When that doesn't work he begins the insults. Anything he cant answer he simply ignores...Just ask this troll to produce one document concerning his credential and he goes away..Waste of time
timetodepop 1 year ago
@timetodepop
Uh oh, did someone get their widdle feelings hurt? ;)
And now you're charging from board to board with white-knuckle fury of I'M GONNA GET EM! hehehehe That sure showed me. ;)
"refutes with basic scientific knowledge" Uh huh. Thats how it usually works. Science beats paranoia ;) My way is an infinite improvement over YOUR way, with
Me: "Science says this"
You: "Well...you...you...YOU SUCK!"
MY GOD! I had no idea your research was quote so extensive.
Loser ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@timetodepop
BTW, you've been made an idiot again ;)
My profile says I "met" George Lucas. Quite a claim.
uh oh, one of the movies on my page shows how that happened... oops ;)
You mean its usually a good idea to read to research before opening your mouth like a tard? I cant imagine why the "hoax" is so dependent on mcjob 39-year-old losers like you ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
If there's only one light source, why bring up "non parallel" then? Whats the giveaway there? Something wrong with the ground?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
Because when you place a light source too close to two objects, these ones will receive its light under different angles, unlike when the light source is distant.
This explains why some shadows diverge when they shouldn't because they are seen laterally, and when shadows are seen laterally they are parallel.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
And the diverging shadows have been explained by uneven terrain. People base belief on "parallel" shadows making unrealistic assumptions about totally flat ground. The moon is neither flat nor unobstructed. There's a great deal written on this in the various debunking webpages. You should read them so you can make a counter-argument fully aware of whats already been discussed and refuted.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
There are shadows which are such that even uneven terrain can't explain it.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
Tes, I have read the debunking, but have you read all the mass of information that the moon hoaxers have, all the questions they put forward?
I very doubt so!
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
How much original work do you honestly think exists on the "hoax?" For no matter which hoax groupie I talk to, on any forum, all we ever hear are the same 3-4 talking points over and over.
If you've really read the debunking then explain why its wrong. I know what YOU claim. And I know the response to your claim (Bad Astronomy webpage, run by an astronomer, is an excellent source), but whats your response to their response? No hoax groupie ever tells me that.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
The demonstrations of the mythbusters are ridiculous, pathetic, they prove nothing.
Making believe that a projector placed close behaves ike the sun is a lie.
The flapping flag in the demonstration of the mythbusters doesn't flap the same way as on the Apollo videos; in the Apollo videos it doesn't flap in a regular way at all, not from inertia.
I live in a real world, not in a world made from delusion.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
The Saturn V was hardly a 'big version of the Nazi V-2 killing machine'. It was a multi-stage, multi-engine design with a different fuel system and propellant, life support, and a far higher performance envelope requiring massive structural changes both internal and external. The ONLY similarity is the primary designer: Wernher von Braun. Good grief, to try to discredit Apollo by mocking the ROCKET?!
JPLyokoWarrior 1 year ago
who believe that nasa went to the moon ??
samir074 1 year ago
@samir074
Anyone who graduated jr high ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
I graduated and I don't believe it.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
Graduated from high school or college? Given your age it could be either one. But do have a good reason for not believing? And did you ever research your reason to see what the rebuttal is? And to see if that rebuttal makes more sense? Most hoax believers I run into dont go to that effort, and it would be easy on everyone if they did so we could talk about things scientifically.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
I have graduated from a superior engineer school of aerinautics, in which I have been taught all disciplines, including electronics and computer science.
And yes, I have done a great deal of research on the Apollo journal: Photos, videos, computer, electronics, mechanics of the flight, nothing makes sense, everything is incoherent.
hunchbacked 1 year ago
@hunchbacked
Thats rather vague claim. Can you be more specific than "Everything?"
Give a specific instance, then give the rebuttal for it, which you claim to have read, and then explain why the rebuttal doesnt work.
If this works out, we can have a real-rip-roaring engineering debate. My disciplines are all aspects of Physical Science, Math, and Radiation. I once showed a hoax film to my class of high school physics students and they shot it to pieces. I want to know what they missed.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@samir074 Or to give a foreign example from Switzerland: Anyone who graduated elementary school 8-)
CHSarahBs 1 year ago
Governments will lie about anything, if they believe that they can get away with it. In the case of the moon, it was easy to make up any story they liked. After all, there is no way that Joe Public can check up on the official truth.
clemstevenson 1 year ago
GOD CREAT STUPID AND CLEAVER PEOPLE SO THAT CLEAVER PEOPLE EAT STUPID PEOPLE MONEY .
HOOLYWOOD IN THE MOON
samir074 1 year ago
@samir074
The "clever" ones make dorky hoax DVDs knowing the "stupid" hoax chasing newbies will buy them.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
This is a useless discussing, even if somebody proves there is a false video, this fact wouldn´t imply that trips to Moon were false, simply, the issue is out of reaching of common people. I think, this is another way for advertising to NASA.
Leivinn20 1 year ago
they probably did fake fotage of man on the moon, becose i think they only land there in 1969 !
and there wasen't enougth fotage for the world wanted to see.
mythbusters did a program about this and explain this, search here on youtube !
yes i know it is an american tv show.. but i belive anyway.
tbg008 1 year ago
@tbg008
But the mythbusters said NONE of the missions were fake.
Besides, doing 1 real and then faking the other 5 makes no sense. Thats 5 times to exposed the fake when they already went for real. Why risk the real shot with a bunch of fake ones? They already had the moonrocks from the first mission, thats always been the best evidence and proves we went.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse yes, you are right. Not just the rocks, but the reflector as well.
they land there and not just once.
tbg008 1 year ago
btw the moon is not grey
flytomars2012 1 year ago
@flytomars2012 oya how did it look when you went there?
Notasheep187 1 year ago
non7b, you suggest there should be stars visible while on the moon, but in your video you show spacewalks that presumably you believe were real, but there are no stars visible in those spacewalks! You prove yourself wrong. If they're not seen on spacewalks (on the daylight side of the earth), they should not be seen on the moon either.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
That fake lunar surface looks NOTHING like the Apollo photos! This film is nothing but theory and conjecture..."could be" junk. Training equipment does not equal a fake.
Grissom was NOT a vocal critic, but occasionally showed impatience because he LOVED NASA. EVERY success has problems along the way! I'd think it was fake if they DID NOT!
Calling the Saturn V a big version of the V2 is just comical! This is amateurish junk.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
...is this the reason why there's Russian spies in our country? they wanna find out if it's real or fake? (?_?)
omfgNstfu 1 year ago
@omfgNstfu well they did catch all those spys last month that were doing what, spying on lives of americans so yea i would say thats correct.
datzfast 1 year ago
this episode proves we went to the moon
if you look at 8:19 ETC shows that while the guy is on spacewalk, no stars are visible
wat to contradict yourself video
siti1ca 1 year ago 3
Can you prove that they did not land on the moon? who told you that the movie shown on YouTube is not fake as well. have a great day all.
NicholasSfeir 1 year ago
yeah,yeah, and the world is still flat, NASA have already admitted the did fiddlr/airbrush the photos, i wonder what everyone saw in the bloody sky as the rocket left atmosphere,... a big fart, or maybe an empty icbm, that ,what never crashed, anywhere, and seeing as Russia already had satellite tech, dont you think that they would have KILLED to disprove this landing, funny how they didnt, mmm, but now we have you tube, thats right, us youtubers now EVERYTHING!!!
boazandjiacinth 1 year ago 2
Conspiracy idiots fall into 2 categories:
1) Trying to make a buck
2) Low self-esteem, and therefore must feel like they know something the rest of us don't to feel better about themselves. Fall victim to category #1. Also usually uneducated (i.e. did not pay attention in the hard classes in school).
This goes for Moon Landing hoaxers, the 9/11 hoaxers, etc.
Really can't put it any simpler than that. They basically have no grasp of physics or logical thinking.
LCPStud 1 year ago
@LCPStud 9/11 wasn't simple no were near simple.....
gekko101 1 year ago
My mother worked for the government during WW2 & they were manufacturing pieces of "something" that they weren't even told wha it was or what it would be-everyone was totally in the dark.Same shit at nasa.
cadu1995 1 year ago
Mythbusters did a special about this. You should watch it.
deathtap 1 year ago
Ha ha! Nosa, I think it's alot easier to make a film than go to the moon. Even a primary school kid knows that.
ManFromMelbourne 1 year ago 9
@ManFromMelbourne going to the moon is too great a concept for your close minded brain i think your just scared shitless...
Notasheep187 1 year ago
@ManFromMelbourne primary school is not always sufficient, and things are not always easy ;)
nerdman431 1 year ago
Hoaxers love to claim that 1960s technology was not advanced enough to get us to the moon. If it wasn't advanced enough to get us there, how the heck was it going to be advanced enough to fake something on this scale. You clowns need to make up your minds. If 60s tech wasn't good enouh to do one thing then it wasn't good enough for the other either. To say different reveals a blatant inconsistency in your logic and leaves you looking foolish
nosajj12345 1 year ago
Yes that's right. Russia and America are always in competition with each other. All America needed to do was to find some dirt on Russia, or found some atrocity that Russia did, and then blackmailed Russia by telling them that if they don't go along with america's fake moon landing then America will expose some crime/atrocity that russia's done. It's called blackmail and it's very common amoungst world leaders and their individual countries.
ManFromMelbourne 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you kidding? Are there STILL morons out there that believe the moon landings did not happen? LOL You think the Soviet Union would have allowed NASA to get away with that? The Russians and the U.S. were is a fierce race to land a man on the moon. The Russians landed unmanned probes that brought back soil sample and moon rocks, just like Apollo did. Earth to morons - men have walked on the moon, simple as that!
BbearWARRIOR 1 year ago
And one another thing: Why the fuck spending so much money to fake something, when from that much money we could evolve more in technology to go wherever we want.. Or at least the nearest planets to us, Why fucking the honest people's money away for these bullshits and lies? Why? And this new Ares thing..I can't belive we return to the fuckin rocket ride man.. Other billions of billions of dollars spending for another useless shit, when we have the anti-gravity from crashed alien crafts?
MrCriztopher 1 year ago
:D You know, this video shows what human beings are.. Or what human beings aren't.. And why did the russians stand down with their plan to the moon? Cause of they could be only second? Who the fuck cares about the 1st place, when we go to space like 1 race? In space there isn't russians or americans or indians or japanese or whatever..In space there is human race representing itself and it's planet Earth.. It's a big shame that I am the only one of 7billion who think like that..
MrCriztopher 1 year ago
@MrCriztopher true friend,greetings from peru
DickTaMs 1 year ago
@DickTaMs Thanx :) At least I'm not the only one thinking like this..:) It is now the 2 of us...:D Greetings from Hungary
MrCriztopher 1 year ago
@MrCriztopher
Are you nuts or a little kiddo in his teens whos thinks he knows all?
Is what we called competition, don't judge the past like the present. It was communist world and capitalist ('' free'') world. Two different world.
Look now, there is a huge collaboration with all differents nations for the space program.
LuisMarad0na 1 year ago
Moon*
HuntedFrog 1 year ago
Why so much hate, learn the truth Neil Armstong take work to get to the Earth you think all it's fake... why did teh us beat the urss... why the Cold War? Fake to? Think
HuntedFrog 1 year ago
@HuntedFrog Actually the Cold War was very real, but there was no fighting. The Cold War doesn't need to cease to exist to believe that the moon landings were hoaxed. In fact, this is why many believers in the hoaxed moon landing think the US faked to moon landing. They think that the US hoaxed the moon landings to be seen by the USSR as superior. Neil Armstrong's silence on the matter doesn't help the myths go away either.
WonModeerf 1 year ago
I hope we can land on the sun before China does.
bobhansenobc 1 year ago
@bobhansenobc hahaahha u r crazy ma jaja
DickTaMs 1 year ago
now i know nasa is completely film industry neil armstrong is the pioneer
maxka7amsut 1 year ago
I am convinced, that this video is a fake. Just look closely at the ear of that man explaining those lunar surface mock-ups. It has completely different color than the rest of his face. He must be faked, noone can have ears like this. There is a major conspiracy going on, wake up, people! Makers of this video spent tremendous sum of cash to create this poorly processed digital image of scientist! What is it good for? THINK! THINK!
vaitripleseven 2 years ago
ZZZZZ
Starduster1000 2 years ago
don't you see, americans are fooling the people around the world, see the evidences in the conspiracy and you'll know morons!
one thing is the vietnam war, americans insists that they were really victorious over the war but infact vietnam won the war!!
americans do really like to impose over the nations just to be called the most influencial people, suck and fuck my cock you whites!!
this statement is true and you'll realized it when youre at maturity, infants!!
cAriBmHeN 2 years ago
Comment removed
LiquidIndian911 2 years ago
"An early attempt to silence Grissom"? Really? If they wanted to silence him, they would have just let him drown. Dumb motherfuckers. I swear, every day hoaxers get stupider.
"There was no guarantee they could land safely without killing the crew".
That implies that there could be a situation in which they land safely, but they all die.
"Big versions of the Nazi's V2 killing machines". Well, in the sense that they are both ROCKETS, yeah. They are.
This is so damn stupid.
QuickdrawMcShaw 2 years ago
The best thing about moon hoaxers is that while they have a common ground of "we did go" they usually have varying reasons for why it wasn't possible. Ranging from lack of technology to the Earth being flat.
There isn't one solid movement of uniform, hard facts to support their beliefs.
Has anyone seen the LRO photos? If you are a moon hoaxer and you don't know what LRO is, then you should be ashamed. Go look it up.
laserfloyd 2 years ago
So many of these myths have been proven wrong, what new information on this so called conspiracy is actually not explainable? ey u tell me 1 and i bet i can prove it wrong
OverLordErIcH 2 years ago
No logical rational person could possibly believe in the moon landing...only dreamers who believe everything they're told. Even with today's technology...it cant be done
rh7189 2 years ago
Totally agree with you rh7189.
A good way of demonstrating your idiocy is to declare your belief that that a man - never mind 12 - walked on the moon and lived to tell the tale.
The fools, the fools.
;)
KenfromDublin 2 years ago
God you're thick as pig shit. Once you've perpetrated one hoax, several more don't prove anything
rh7189 2 years ago
@rh7189 Tell us why it can't be done.
bodrius 2 years ago
the space shuttle has killed 14 people just going into earths orbit yet is it not more dangerous to go to the moon with the tech of 30 years before so many times and not have any fatalities? plus has any 1 seen the vid of ap.11 were they are clearly seen faking the shot of the earth from 130,000 miles out that is condeming u can see there in earths orbit and the vid is dated like a day before there meant to hav landed on the moon so that is a fact they could not ov gone to the moon!
dboi08m 2 years ago
america is a fakeee... everything about itt..
elswireless 2 years ago 27
@elswireless
Did i said it? Suck my d ic k and blow your head off,
Greeting from Canada
LuisMarad0na 1 year ago
@elswireless NASA is real and they fooled America so what do you think you havent been fooled.
datzfast 1 year ago
@elswireless
Hey look, a sheep making fun of sheep.
uxet 11 months ago
"Most of it was spent on the ground--not in space." What is that supposed to mean? Is there any other place to spend money but on earth? Hello! These simulator photos don't look ANYTHING like what we finally saw! It's clearly training material! NASA contractors made MUCH more than models and simulators! Where did the Saturn V come from? Wouldn't it have been easier to kill Grisson without destroying a capsule, 2 well-trained astronauts and delaying the program? Makes no sense.
LunarTuner 2 years ago
"Wouldn't it have been easier to kill Grisson without destroying a capsule, 2 well-trained astronauts and delaying the program? Makes no sense."
Nothing makes sense to a hoax believer, because they have no sense.
fundiebasher 2 years ago
Basic laws of Physics ! am surprised you can spell it ,you are SO wrong every aspect of your so called hoax can be proven to be flawed where do i start " no stars is a good one " how many stars can YOU see in the day well it was daylight on the moon the sky was black because and try and get this through your thick skull, without atmosphere the sky is black.
snookerjim 2 years ago
Don't talk down to whoever that is, especially since you don't even know how to fucking use a comma or period..
CheIseaSmiIe 2 years ago
No atmosphere on the moon you idiot, so the sky is blacker than the blackest night on Earth-even when the sun shining.
Collins claimed that he could not recall seeing any stars even though he was allegedly in orbit around the moon and would have seen the darkest view of the universe - out of the module window - that any man could ever have hoped to have seen while in the moon's shadow, yet this LIAR expects you believe he saw no stars.
Have some respect for yourself and wake up to reality.
KenfromDublin 2 years ago
the reason they look like V2 rockets - same designers and scientists....
WTU208 2 years ago
Then obviously Jack Crow is nuts.
fundiebasher 2 years ago
Now you dodged my question about how many other "conspiracies" you believe in.
Its a simple enough question, but your reluctance to answer implies that you do in fact believe in a few more, but are shy about expressing your beliefs for fear of more ridicule.
But if your "conspiracies" have evidence and can be proven, then there should be nothing to fear. Since you do fear, thats an admission that you DONT have evidence
And that begs: If you DONT have evidence, then how can you believe them? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"no sun rays"
THATS AN ATMOSPHERIC EFFECT YOU DUMBASS.
No air equals no rays.
Good god man, do you research ANY of this before mouthing off like a naive newb?
Why do you think no professional photographers never bring up these points? Why it is always amatuers and pretenders who've never had a day of education in their life?
How DO you personally justify, to yourself, that you're pretending you're smarter than every EXPERT whose ever looked at these pics?
This why hoax kooks get nowhere
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"zero"
Thats making a naive assumption (of which we've lost count) of the Earth conveniently being in a photographable position at just the right time.
You may not be aware that the moon does not rotate. That means the Earth holds ONE spot in the sky and never moves. It doesnt rise, doesnt set. Therefore if its too high or too low for a pic, you're not getting a pic.
This is why professional photographers never make your claim, they dont jump to conclusions about what they dont know.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Ya know after they lied about WMDs in Iraq etc I'm starting to consider the denials more seriously. Still find it hard to believe though. Mmmmmmm......
bluenail90 2 years ago
"WMD" is one of the stupidest complaints out there.
IF they really "lied," then why the hell did they pick a "lie" that was so easy to prove wrong? Why didnt they pick a reason that couldnt EVER be proven fake? I've asked that question 50 times and never gotten an answer.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
If your college physics teacher didn't believe it then he's an idiot who should be fired and never allowed to teach again, even at the kindergarten level.
fundiebasher 2 years ago
He was a tenured full professor and former chairman of the Department, and did a lot of research that was NSF funded. He had such a tremendous enthusiasm and such a take charge personality that some girls fell in love with him. He really had a "can do" attitude about what science and technology can achieve. So, that made it all the more ironic. This was the Physics course for Physics majors.
mooninquirer 2 years ago
Hmmm..., that got posted, so it looks like something fishy is going on. Anyway, just search for the vid titled "Apollo 14 LM lift-off and CSM docking".
fundiebasher 2 years ago
I've tried a number of times to post a link to a film of the LM docking with the CSM, but I keep getting blocked. I suspect that mooninquirer knows about that film and has configured things somehow to prevent it being posted here. Is that possible?
fundiebasher 2 years ago
I don't think you are convincing anyone with that comment; anyway, "SpreadingtheMuse" admitted there are no photos or video of this event.
mooninquirer 2 years ago
"convincing anyone"
Says the man with 40 years of conspiracy innuendo and hearsay with nothing to show for it. ;)
I'm not here to convince YOU. I'm here to demonstrate to the casual lurker how quickly hoax pushers fail to present fact and change the subject whenever faced with a losing argument.
Shall I repeat, again, the topics you've dropped after being challenged only once? ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
I actually think I might learn something from you, especially about the college physics texts. But I doubt that you are going to be convincing anyone else. Most people just watch the video and do not read the comments.
mooninquirer 2 years ago
Thats polar opposite of what I've found, that people ignore the video and just read whatever "excitement" is going on in the comment section.
Now if you want to "learn" something, you can. You only need to ask questions you have an honest intent of listening to the answers too, not questions of "gotcha" or cut and pastes from hoax webpages.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Why should it matter where the questions came from, or whether they are "gotcha" questions ? One who is telling the truth should have no fear of any "gotcha" question.
mooninquirer 2 years ago
"gotchas" are not asked for enlightenment. They're asked for attack purposes, where the asker already knows what he "thinks" is the answer, and is using a "question" as a cover for a hidden insult or biased agenda. Any such question is NOT legitimate.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
OK. Which question was a "gotcha" ?
mooninquirer 2 years ago
"gotcha"
"No photos of the LEM" is not an honest question. For, I seriously doubt that you personally scoured each and every photo looking for it. No, you cut and paste the claim from a dork webpage and repeated it as would-be "AH HA!" moment, trying to trump up a phony charge with "evidence" you're hardly qualified to present, let alone judge. I am not impressed by "manufactured" outrage.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Are you talking about the rejoining with the orbiter, or the docking ? It is just that I do not see that being on TV. It also was not part of NASA's documentary "Apollo 11 The flight of the Eagle" They used an animation to show the docking. What do you think about the footage that "fundiebasher" referred to ? Does NASA claim that that is real footahge, or is it a re-construction ?
Actually, this particular complaint is something I haven't seen anyone else bring up.
mooninquirer 2 years ago
Any point about the "rejoining" is nonsensical. Its just a random point you pulled out of a hoax kook laundry bag hoping to manufacture a phony issue.
Why?
Why is it more important that when it happened for Apollo 10 or 9?
Why is this never mentioned by any OTHER hoax kook?
Why does no professional astronomer think its any big deal? If the pros dont have a problem, then the amateurs dont get a vote.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
But what is the position of NASA on that footage ? Do they maintain that it is actual footage ?
mooninquirer 2 years ago
I have no idea what NASA says about that footage, as they likely find it as irrelevant as I do.
You see, we DO have footage of man walking on the moon.
But you want to call it fake based not on THAT footage, but on a miscellaneous docking that had already happened on previous missions?
If you cant argue our best evidence, then you cant argue.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"fundiebasher" referred to it. If it wasn't from NASA, who did it ?
There were SIX man-to-the-moon missions, and even the moon buggy. But you would think that they would have footage of the docking, which, if it happened WOULD be spectacular.
The LM would have had to be extremely accurate in its maneuverability to do that.
How DID it maneuver at all ? Where are the retro rockets ? The top part of the LM is just a gold foil colored thing. Did it HAVE TO manuever at all ?
mooninquirer 2 years ago
You keep ignoring that the only way to get footage of the docking would be from OUTSIDE both ships, meaning a risky spacewalk for no better reason than a publicity stunt.
They didnt do it for very predictable reasons, such as it had ALREADY BEEN DONE in previous apollos and by the russians. AND who cares about a docking when you've got footage of a moon buggy?
I know damn well if they COULDNT produce footage of the buggy you'd whine about that. You're just cherry picking your outrage.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
I am very unimpressed with that buggy----and that is a whole question in itself. The buggy tooling around on the "surface of the moon" looks just like a dune buggy, including the sand being kicked up. If it were in moon gravity, that sand would go much higher. Further, it looks like it was in an air environment, because of the "rooster tail" shape on that kicked up sand. Without air, it would be very parabolic shaped.
Further, I think NASA overplayed their hand with the moon buggy
mooninquirer 2 years ago
"go so much higher"
I presume you can provide the calculations to back that up, instead of appearing to just make a flying guess based on physics you've already admitted to having no education in.
I SEE a parabolic arc, not a rooster tail. Which relegates your complaint to yet more of the "kooks see what they want to see" category, wherein we're inundated with scientific illiteracy from amateurs with nary a professional in sight.
Oh wait, I AM a professional. ;)
And I say it looks fine.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
It was described as a "rooster tail" by the astronauts themselves. Look at your statement here-----you provide neither calculations, nor an argument that, despite the one-sixth gravity, the sand being kicked up by the astronauts or the buggy would be the SAME HEIGHT as on Earth. You don't "get" to just say it looks fine, because you claim to have taught college physics.
My college physics professor said it was a hoax. He was a full professor and did valuable NSF research on magnetism.
mooninquirer 2 years ago
"described as rooster tail"
Thats hardly a technical term and you know it. Any idiot can see the video for themselves and trace the parabolic arc with their own finger.
Now YOU'RE the quack here. Its up to you to prove the dust is WRONG before I'm obliged to prove its right. The landing is established fact by the people qualified to judge, and it cant be refuted by merely saying "looks wrong" by any mere youtard amatuer.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"You don't "get" to just say it looks fine, because you claim to have taught college physics."
The hell if I dont. Those of us who've put in the time and done the work and have the experience are always SO worried about the opinion of illiterate amatuers who havent done anything worth a DAMN. When you get 7 years of schooling and have taught 10 subjects and work 60 hour weeks, then you can make an opinion without getting laughed at.
Til then, experience talks. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
"My college physics professor said it was a hoax."
Then he's a flaming idiot, and I'll call him that to his face.
In fact send him my physics videos so he can see me personally.
I've only taught Physics and Chemistry and Astronomy and Earth Sci and Calculus, and now work in a Nuclear Engineering Plant. So if you're going to drag him into a juvenile battle of the resumes you better make damn sure he's ready.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
I don't believe mooninquirer's claim that his college physics professor said the landings were a hoax. If he did, he must be some sort of barely qualified affirmative-action type. He clearly should not be teaching.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
Why would he be an affirmative action type ?
Your mind is clearly already made up----you know it is a hoax, but you do not want that fact to get out to others, so you say a person even QUESTIONING the moon landing must be retarded or crazy.
I challenge others, who are taking physics in college, or know someone who is, to ask their professor about the moon walk, and SEE what he / she says.
mooninquirer 2 years ago
Anyone "QUESTIONING" the moonlanding is likely stupid or crazy, for the very simple reason that there is no legitimate question to be asked.
Speaking from my own direct experience in physics and such, I have read or heard of NO question whatsoever that wasnt entirely based on the illiteracy, error, or outright bias of the hoax pusher.
You've had 40 years to find anything and have accomplished absolutely nothing. Your chance is over.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Actually, in 37 years, there have been no manned missions by any country higher than 300 miles, but the moon is over 200,000 miles away from Earth. Further, what has the science or technology that has come out of it ?
mooninquirer 2 years ago
"higher than 300 miles"
And if you're saying thats synonymous with technological stagnation, you're as uninformed as you are inexperienced.
Going to the moon was ONE goal. And we did it, great. Then we made OTHER goals:
6 shuttles, 2 space stations, 12 mars rovers etc etc. All that lead to satellites, GPS, etc etc.
So we can learn and achieve all that NEW stuff, or waste 37 years doing the exact same thing over and over and over to satisfy the ignorance of rank amatuers.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Are you in any position to say technology HASNT come out of it? Are you educated enough to even recognize it if you saw it? Or is your 'expertise' limited to asking ignorance driven gotcha questions?
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
I find that very hard to believe. If your college physics professor said it was a hoax, he shouldn't be teaching.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
Everyone, ask your college physics professor, or someone you know who is taking a college course in physics. And how could a physics professor NOT discuss the moon hoax, when gravity is taught ? Students would ask why there is no evidence of one-sixth gravity in the Apollo footage, since the moon has a gravity one-sixth that of the Earth. There are other examples, like why the LM didn't tip over on landing, like in this video in the prototype at 6:13
mooninquirer 2 years ago
LEM didn't tip over like in the little model you show being THROWN sideways because the lateral motion was zero when it landed, and your claim there is NO evidence of 1/6 G in the Apollo footage is ridiculous, everything they film on the moon's surface is evidence of the low gravity. Obviously you are insane and we are done with you.
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
Thank you for verifying my prediction of what you would say.
And, HOW did lateral motion stop ?
This is why it is NOT discussed in "Fundamentals of Physics" by Halliday and Resnick. There is a chapter on gravity, and a lot of discussion of the moon and pictures. Now, if the astronauts could easily jump 15 ft, or descend the LM with just their hands ( they weighed about 62 lbs with their packs on the moon ), that would be a GREAT picture, to discuss that one-sixth gravity.
mooninquirer 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
Again, thank you for revealing the agenda that moon landing propagandists are trying to push. It must be VERY valuable to you, because you are getting so angry, and want to discourage people from finding the truth. As i said, everyone, ask your physics professor. God, you sure want that war with Iran, don't you ?
mooninquirer 2 years ago
"the truth"
THANK GOD we have scientifically illiterate hoax gluttons to tell us what the "truth" is. I almost listened to a professional engineer who actually, like, works for a living. ;)
And as the only physics professor on this board, I can say from experience than any "hoax" claim is a victim of its own ignorance incompetence. There is no legitimate evidence of any "hoax." Only newbs who push cut and pastes ten years past their education level.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
OK---NOW you are a professor again. I thought you said you are now working in a Nuclear Engineering Plant. You ALSO said that you taught high school. Do you have a certification ?
What is your highest degree ?
mooninquirer 2 years ago
Once a teacher, always a teacher. ;)
Since you're intent on asking (to coddle your paranoia no doubt), I spent 15 years as an educator in public schools and universities, switching to Nuclear work only fairly recently.
However, I do in fact still have a teaching credential in Mathematics and ALL the Physical Sciences.
And my highest degree is a Masters. ;)
Well now, shall we hear about YOUR stupendous life now? I have a suspicion you've already lost the resume contest. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Actually, you wanted to have a resume contest with my physics professor. You are the one constantly shooting your mouth off about your technical and scientific expertise.
My physics professor was Jack Crow at Florida State. May he RIP. I feel very honored to have had a full year course ( the honors section of Physics ) with such a distinguished scientist. Look him up.
Needless to say, he had a Ph.D., and was a full tenured professor. He also was the best teacher I ever had.
mooninquirer 2 years ago
Because, unlike hoax quacks and wannabes, I HAVE technical and scientific expertise. I've done the research and gotten the experience whereas they only GUESS at physics and flounder at science. You for example. I've asked you repeatedly to detail your own qualifications and you've stalled every time. You've have no qualification to discuss anything about the 8th grade than the average Mcjob.
Newbies like you who pretend to be something they're not will be confronted.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
If he was tenured, does that mean he was one of those idiots who was immune to being fired no matter incompetent he was in the classroom? ;)
And now he's conveniently dead, so we have only your word for how "good" he was, which is likely bias of him telling you exactly what you wanted to hear.
Unfortunately, I'm far more capable of proving my own expertise than this yutz can even prove he existed. I have educational physics films uploaded right here, which you've ignored repeadedly ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Really ? Well, you claim that you taught an astronomy class at the college level. You claimed the astronomy textbook covered the moon walk from A to Z. What was the science that was learned from landing a man on the moon ? Does that astronomy textbook say, for example, " we know that stars are not visible from the moon as a result of the Apollo missions." And what is the title and author of this astronomy textbook you used in teaching that class ?
mooninquirer 2 years ago
Going to the moon was an exercise in using the science we already had, to prove we were smart enough and achieved enough to do it. It was meant for the accomplishment, not the learning.
Now I asked you before what point you thought you were making and you didnt answer, more or less proving that you DONT have a point with this. Its just another juvenile gotcha stall as you ran out of dork talking points a week ago. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
There you go again with that "gotcha" complaint.
You say that it was in using the science we already had----but what about that rocket lander that Neil Armstrong ejected from and crashed ? The technology for a rocket lander did NOT exist.
So, you admit that there was NO science learned from the moon landing ? You said before that your astronomy text discusses it from A to Z.
mooninquirer 2 years ago
I SAID the primary mission of the landing was to prove that we could do it. I never said nothing was learned. ;)
Its these time-wasting hair-splitting innuendos that you're obsessed with gorging yourself on that only prove you have nothing credible to discuss. This is just a dumb attempt of yours to save face in an argument you're way over your head in.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
OK, thanks. I will check it out.
As for your question at the end, I am just asking for what YOU claimed.
mooninquirer 2 years ago
"check it out"
WELL THANK GOD. Shall we inform the authors about your prestigious review of their work? And you're actually going to buy the thing?
Now you ignored my earlier question about your motivation. IS IT YOUR CONTENTION that any science book, no matter the subject, that doesnt mention the moonlanding is giving a subliminal hint that it was fake?
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
What-----are you NOW saying that your astronomy textbook does NOT discuss the moonlanding from A to Z ? I didn't say that I would write a review of that book.
mooninquirer 2 years ago