Please get some film students to make this a presentable video. The hoax believers won't take the time to watch this as they have limited attention spans and must get back to Grand Theft Auto before too long.
Or, they got tens of thousands of briefings every year about possible threats and didn't know which one (it turned out to be planes hitting buildings) was viable.
Has anyone brought up the fact that the Russians were tracking these moon shots, and would have screamed bloody murder if they had any suspicion that they were faked?
I mean, that would have been their freaking wet dream, yet they said nothing, because they clearly knew the landings were NOT faked.
I have pointed this out several times. The idiots, I mean deniers will claim the Russians knew it was faked but were paid off by the US or some such nonsense. Its a typical conspiracy theory in that they have to come up with more & more ludicrous explanations to keep their delusions alive.
Whether they did or not --the explicit evidence of NASAHOAX'S is enormous undeniable viable and logical. Why go to the moon in twenty years? Why not NOW!
Now is a different reason. In the 60/70s it was political - "to beat those damn commies". Now they want to build a moonbase which means new bigger spacecraft to carry equipment & supplies for longer stays on the moon.
Useless prattle! Forget it. It does not matter a hill of mashed potatoes anymore. Americans were hoodwinked and that is that! Now we must avoid the future pitfalls of our "trusted gov and Nasa" and return to a society FOR and OF the people; that is not run like a phony dictatorship or else ALL will pay for a FAKE Mars mission and Moonfake again.
we dont need to do it fool. There are proofs everywhere. Hundreds of kilos of moon rocks that EXPERT geologists 9not idiots like hoax believers) have anylized, ALL AROUND THE WORLD, and confirmed they are MOON rocks.
There are MIRRORS on the moon, positioned by the Apollo astronauts, used by laboratories all around the world all the time!
I'm way ahead of you. I know the real truth on that. Did you think that what you had to say to me will be something new that will make me think different. Do you think that erases the fact that for all these years we haven't gone to the moon to further our exploration and learning of the physical universe. I'm not at that lower unaware level my friend. NO need to respond!
Imagine you saved your money then spent a wk going to the Gobi Desert. You stand in this desolate place looking at the rocks & sky as there is nothing else there. You then spend a week going home with a handfull of rocks. Would you save up to go back again when there is nothing there of value to you?
You are kidding aren't you? You use this example that you gave me to compare with manned exploration of the moon. If we had gone to the moon there would have been many scientific benefits to continue on going to the moon. We would have built a space station of some sort by now...but that's only if we had gone.
there were no benefits sending manned missions. It was CHEAPER to send probes. We hardly have funding to build the international space station 300km above Earth, imagine a moon base, 300 thousand km above Earth.
You have to put in your hard head that NASA is funded by american people taxes. People lost interest on the moon and the congress wasnt interested in financing the expensive manned trips anymore.
1 word - politics. JFK said we will send a man to the moon & gave NASA funding to do it. Why? To upstage the USSR during the cold war. The US had already been embarrassed by the USSR putting the first satellite & man in space. The current US admin has said they want a moon base so it will get funding.
In theory lol. There are still no clear benefits in making a base at the moon. Helium3? Until we dominate cold fusion, its worthless I think. Experience, tech and a base to Mars? The Mars Society Group says its useless.
I believe the intention is to use the moon as a launching pad to the rest of the solar system - there is no need for huge rockets to launch from the moon.
Thats the hole point of getting the helium 3 it has one less proton and is more stable than the fuels they are trying to use for fussion now.The fuels they use now destroy their containment vessels.
Well maybe so but you could argue that all those tax dollars just go back into the economy.If im an engineer at Rockwell and I get paid big bucks for designing space craft for Apollo I will probably spend that money on other things..new house ,car ,pool etc which creates new jobs and more tax revenue.
acctually the moonlnading footage is proof on it self, compare it whit any other footage from any sci-fi movie of dramatitation and there is none that come close to it, none that have the same feeling and this was way before cgi and the like, the moon landing is real
tollonco: where did the LEM and the command module go, if not to the Moon? They were visible in Earth orbit, then left for several days before showing up in orbit again.
The sound in these videos seems to have a difficult resonance. i have some difficulty understanding what is being said. I have to say that most people who come to be in charge, are beings of monumental hubris and deceit. That means that they have no difficulty basing their careers in a mountain of bullshit. It did not seem like technology based on science to me. If it was not mostly arm waving, they might have tried to build a dwelling of some kind or at least tried to dig in a little.
When they left Earth orbit they were travelling at 24,500 Miles per HOUR. However this speed decreases as they get to the higher part of their orbit, they meet the Moon while travelling only a few thousand miles per hour (then proceed to fire the engine and slow into Lunar orbit). This leg of the trip takes about 3 days.
SGS317A 24,500 Milesper HOUR.<<< That is not the point-it makes no sense NOT to continue at that speed until it is better to slow down at the moon. therefore the time to the moon is cut very short and safer when quicker-
And how do you suppose they will slow down when they get there if travelling at 24500 miles per hour? The rockets would not be able to prevent them from crashing into the surface of the moon.
This is the biggest problem with these ignorant hoax claims... the assumption that everything in space should work the same way as it does on earth... where we have an atmosphere.
I understand that but the original question was why did they travel at a slower speed than they could have. I assume it was because they couldn't produce enough thrust to slow down from 24500 miles per hour or to reduce the fuel required to produce the required thrust.
2LegHumanist//////24,500 Milesper HOUR////// speed decreases as they get to the higher , they meet the Moon while travelling only a few thousand miles per hour (then proceed to fire the engine and slow into Lunar orbit). This leg of the trip takes about 3 days.
somehow, i got to here by looking at a call of duty map pack trailer
WeirdHobbiesMan 6 months ago
Please get some film students to make this a presentable video. The hoax believers won't take the time to watch this as they have limited attention spans and must get back to Grand Theft Auto before too long.
Haplotype0 1 year ago
This guy is completely lost. And the presentation makes me fall asleep.
VannaTroms 3 years ago
VERY TRUE! -- He doesn't even use a powerpoint, I can't believe he's actually presenting using word!
spitdeth 2 years ago
The lack of PowerPoint doesn't invalidate what he is saying.
mddawson1 2 years ago 2
of course not, but it shows you how unprofessional this is.
spitdeth 2 years ago
For those people who thinks we landed the moon at least twice, and 4 of them were faked. Why 4 of them are hoax and 2 of them real??
crazyanimeguy 3 years ago
Or, they got tens of thousands of briefings every year about possible threats and didn't know which one (it turned out to be planes hitting buildings) was viable.
Mundunugu 3 years ago
Has anyone brought up the fact that the Russians were tracking these moon shots, and would have screamed bloody murder if they had any suspicion that they were faked?
I mean, that would have been their freaking wet dream, yet they said nothing, because they clearly knew the landings were NOT faked.
Only morons think they were faked. Period.
jpowell180 4 years ago
I have pointed this out several times. The idiots, I mean deniers will claim the Russians knew it was faked but were paid off by the US or some such nonsense. Its a typical conspiracy theory in that they have to come up with more & more ludicrous explanations to keep their delusions alive.
mddawson1 4 years ago
jpowell180Russians were tracking<<
Yes many times and this tracking has been debunked as Nasahoax. Russians clearly knew nothing!
EGMAG 4 years ago
mddawson1 Russians knew it was fake<<
Whether they did or not --the explicit evidence of NASAHOAX'S is enormous undeniable viable and logical. Why go to the moon in twenty years? Why not NOW!
EGMAG 4 years ago
Now is a different reason. In the 60/70s it was political - "to beat those damn commies". Now they want to build a moonbase which means new bigger spacecraft to carry equipment & supplies for longer stays on the moon.
mddawson1 4 years ago
mddawson1 different reason<<
Useless prattle! Forget it. It does not matter a hill of mashed potatoes anymore. Americans were hoodwinked and that is that! Now we must avoid the future pitfalls of our "trusted gov and Nasa" and return to a society FOR and OF the people; that is not run like a phony dictatorship or else ALL will pay for a FAKE Mars mission and Moonfake again.
EGMAG 4 years ago
That's possible
dharmamark 4 years ago
one thing that is so nice for the anti-hoax people. We can't go to the moon to see if it is true or not. No one can at this time!
dharmamark 4 years ago
we dont need to do it fool. There are proofs everywhere. Hundreds of kilos of moon rocks that EXPERT geologists 9not idiots like hoax believers) have anylized, ALL AROUND THE WORLD, and confirmed they are MOON rocks.
There are MIRRORS on the moon, positioned by the Apollo astronauts, used by laboratories all around the world all the time!
rogerpenna 4 years ago 2
I'm way ahead of you. I know the real truth on that. Did you think that what you had to say to me will be something new that will make me think different. Do you think that erases the fact that for all these years we haven't gone to the moon to further our exploration and learning of the physical universe. I'm not at that lower unaware level my friend. NO need to respond!
dharmamark 4 years ago
Imagine you saved your money then spent a wk going to the Gobi Desert. You stand in this desolate place looking at the rocks & sky as there is nothing else there. You then spend a week going home with a handfull of rocks. Would you save up to go back again when there is nothing there of value to you?
mddawson1 4 years ago
You are kidding aren't you? You use this example that you gave me to compare with manned exploration of the moon. If we had gone to the moon there would have been many scientific benefits to continue on going to the moon. We would have built a space station of some sort by now...but that's only if we had gone.
dharmamark 4 years ago
Benefits like what? A moon base is planned starting in approx 10 yrs from now.
mddawson1 4 years ago
there were no benefits sending manned missions. It was CHEAPER to send probes. We hardly have funding to build the international space station 300km above Earth, imagine a moon base, 300 thousand km above Earth.
You have to put in your hard head that NASA is funded by american people taxes. People lost interest on the moon and the congress wasnt interested in financing the expensive manned trips anymore.
rogerpenna 4 years ago
1 word - politics. JFK said we will send a man to the moon & gave NASA funding to do it. Why? To upstage the USSR during the cold war. The US had already been embarrassed by the USSR putting the first satellite & man in space. The current US admin has said they want a moon base so it will get funding.
mddawson1 4 years ago
In theory lol. There are still no clear benefits in making a base at the moon. Helium3? Until we dominate cold fusion, its worthless I think. Experience, tech and a base to Mars? The Mars Society Group says its useless.
rogerpenna 4 years ago
I believe the intention is to use the moon as a launching pad to the rest of the solar system - there is no need for huge rockets to launch from the moon.
mddawson1 4 years ago
Thats the hole point of getting the helium 3 it has one less proton and is more stable than the fuels they are trying to use for fussion now.The fuels they use now destroy their containment vessels.
quaheedus 4 years ago
Well maybe so but you could argue that all those tax dollars just go back into the economy.If im an engineer at Rockwell and I get paid big bucks for designing space craft for Apollo I will probably spend that money on other things..new house ,car ,pool etc which creates new jobs and more tax revenue.
quaheedus 4 years ago
That is because we don't need to go to the moon to prove that NASA went there. There is enough evidence on earth.
tim3978 4 years ago
acctually the moonlnading footage is proof on it self, compare it whit any other footage from any sci-fi movie of dramatitation and there is none that come close to it, none that have the same feeling and this was way before cgi and the like, the moon landing is real
federico033 4 years ago 2
The photos, footage and testimony from the astronauts is enought proof of the moon landing!
malcolmeat 4 years ago
hey malcolmeat, I got some land in Florida for you!
dharmamark 4 years ago
the moon is a totally different claim
EGMAG 4 years ago
cant hear this
EGMAG 4 years ago
tollonco: where did the LEM and the command module go, if not to the Moon? They were visible in Earth orbit, then left for several days before showing up in orbit again.
bethpage89 4 years ago
How would you know, you weren't even born then.
mddawson1 4 years ago
The sound in these videos seems to have a difficult resonance. i have some difficulty understanding what is being said. I have to say that most people who come to be in charge, are beings of monumental hubris and deceit. That means that they have no difficulty basing their careers in a mountain of bullshit. It did not seem like technology based on science to me. If it was not mostly arm waving, they might have tried to build a dwelling of some kind or at least tried to dig in a little.
hypnofan35 4 years ago
When they left Earth orbit they were travelling at 24,500 Miles per HOUR. However this speed decreases as they get to the higher part of their orbit, they meet the Moon while travelling only a few thousand miles per hour (then proceed to fire the engine and slow into Lunar orbit). This leg of the trip takes about 3 days.
SGS317A 4 years ago
SGS317A 24,500 Milesper HOUR.<<< That is not the point-it makes no sense NOT to continue at that speed until it is better to slow down at the moon. therefore the time to the moon is cut very short and safer when quicker-
EGMAG 4 years ago
And how do you suppose they will slow down when they get there if travelling at 24500 miles per hour? The rockets would not be able to prevent them from crashing into the surface of the moon.
This is the biggest problem with these ignorant hoax claims... the assumption that everything in space should work the same way as it does on earth... where we have an atmosphere.
2LegHumanist 4 years ago 3
how do you suppose they will slow down when they get there if travelling at 24500 mile<<<
Using footbrakes!idiot
EGMAG 4 years ago
like the ones in your car right? LMAO
On what principle do you expect these foot breaks to operate? There's no atmosphere... idiot.
2LegHumanist 4 years ago
The action of the rockets against the back of the rocket motor (& therefore the spacecraft) slows it down.
mddawson1 4 years ago
I understand that but the original question was why did they travel at a slower speed than they could have. I assume it was because they couldn't produce enough thrust to slow down from 24500 miles per hour or to reduce the fuel required to produce the required thrust.
2LegHumanist 4 years ago
Or maybe the slower speed timed their arrival at moon correctly. They had limited full so travelling a little slower & in a straight line saves fuel.
mddawson1 4 years ago
glide in slow and stick out yer foot
EGMAG 4 years ago
>glide in slow and stick out yer foot
How do you glide when you don't have any form of atmosphere to glide in?
2LegHumanist 4 years ago
you "glide" with retro rockets to slow down. They also produce a reddish dark cloud like LM exhaust which is duly NOT noted in all the films,
EGMAG 4 years ago
"you "glide" with retro rockets to slow down"
Wow. That's a hell of a stretch. Now using rocket boosters to slow down is considered gliding is it?
2LegHumanist 4 years ago
2LegHumanist ("you "glide" using rocket boosters to slow down is considered gliding
EGMAG 4 years ago
Is flying in a 747 with all engines running now considered to be gliding too?
2LegHumanist 4 years ago
2LegHumanist//////24,500 Milesper HOUR////// speed decreases as they get to the higher , they meet the Moon while travelling only a few thousand miles per hour (then proceed to fire the engine and slow into Lunar orbit). This leg of the trip takes about 3 days.
EGMAG 4 years ago