We landed on the moon not once but six times. That is one hell of a conspiracy eh? 24 different astronauts. You deniers are just plain insane in the brain. * Apollo 11 landed 20 July 1969 * Apollo 12 landed 19 November 1969 * Apollo 14 landed 5 February 1971 * Apollo 15 landed 30 July 1971 * Apollo 16 landed 20 April 1972 * Apollo 17 landed 11 December 1972
The six lunar landings are a solid FACT. Taught in every academic institution around the world. The Moon rocks and six foot intact core tube samples have been studied around the world and verified to be non-terrestrial. The massive amount of scientific data returned has spawned hundreds of peer reviewed scientific studies and is still studied today. Impossible to fake that amount of evidence for so long. It is the most documented human achievement ever.
You guys are NUTS! There is no Cold War now and NASA has sent probes to other planets, even to far away Jupiter. These probes have sent amazing photos, so that means they made it through the earth's radiation belt. Nasa has even landed unmanned rovers on Mars and Venus that sent back amazing photos. For what reason will the government 'conspire' this time?
@AtilladHun your key word there is UNMANNED they have sent unmanned probes and rovers to other planets but the arguement is that humans couldnt survive the trip throught the radiation belts and that is only one of the long list of impossibilties that people are supposed to and blindly do believe for this hoax to work if they could send people to the moon in the 70s why havent they sent anyone even close to the moon or any other planet since?
@Flembo9, There are NO two photos of ANY mountains which are "exactly the same."
I once argued for 2 days with someone who claimed that 2 photos looked "exactly the same" until I showed him my measurements from the photos he was arguing about which showed a difference in perspective of 30 degrees between two points of reference on the mountains he was talking about.
And "radiation"?? hahaha. That objection is a joke. How much radiation is in the Van Allen belts? Can't answer that one, can you?
@prosperomage the radiation within the van allen belt is about 2500 rem and the belt its self is roughly 6000km thick, a leathal amout of radiation to a human is anything over 400rem
@Flembo9 -- No.You need to learn some things about radiation if you are going to draw any conclusions about it that are based on reality.
"REM" cannot even be used as a unit of measure for radiation in a location. You cannot say: "the radiation in a place is so-many rem." REM is a measure of total radiation absorbed over a period of time.
If you do not say: REM per minute or REM per hour or REM per year or something like that, then just using "so many REM in a place" has no meaning.
@Flembo9 -- All that being said, there IS a series of articles which exists in several places on the internet that gives 2,500 rem as the explosure in the Van Allen belt. The FULL sentence is:
"A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year."
So your 2,500 rem is actually rem per YEAR. There are 8766 hours in an average year, so that is less than 0.3 rem per hour.
@Flembo9 -- Now, escape velocity for Earth's gravitation is 25,000 miles per hour. So how long would it take them to travel across 8,000 miles at 25,000 miles per hour?
8,000 / 25,000 = 0.32 one third of an hour.
So at that rate, according to YOUR numbers, they would get one third of 0.3 rem or 0.09 rem of radiation exposure from the Van Allen belt.
So: What were you saying about Van Allen belt radiation?
OK. So if it was a hoax, then why do people who make video "documentaries" to try to prove it was a hoax feel the need to lie?
Or do they merely not understand anything about optics or photography ... No, that can't be the case, because some of them CLAIM to be "experts" in optics.
For instance, the "proof" that the background was "fake" because it was in two different shots. It is OBVIOUS that the two different shots were taken from different perspectives on the same distant mountains.
@nesokretep same distant mountains? when even nasa claimed they were taken at locations at least 2 milles apart how could the mountains look exactly the same from 2 different locations at least 2 miles apart? thats just proposterous, not to mension how good the pictures are from cameras they couldnt even see out of bullsh*t
For instance: If you do the math on the reflectivity of the lunar surface vs. the metalic lander and white space suits, you see that there IS sufficient reflected light to see the shadow side of the lander and astronauts. In the shadow, they should be just as visible as the lunar surface in the background ... and they are.
Why should NASA make a documentary to "defend" the moon landing?
They've made plenty of documentaries and displays and given research material to indpendent scientists, etc. over the years to show what they did. No need to "defend."
The orignal landing was independently tracked, not only by NASA but by the Russians, who had their own un-manned probes at the same time.
The telemetry was monitored by THOUSANDS of engineers, not just at NASA, but at many private, independent companies, who were vitally interested in the functioning of each sub-system.
AND -- on top of all of that ... Each one of these videos by people who believe the thing was a "hoax" just shows their wrong interpretation of physics.
For instance: one guy thinks the shadows prove "two light sources" but they really just prove that the surface had hills on it.
@nesokretep ok.. i stand corrected in this statement... if it really happened, why won't they send another astronauts to prove that it really happened.. now we have greater technology.. they can take more clear shots using modern video cam so we can prove that it really happened.. thats my only point of view
NASA doesn't control it's own budget. Just like everything else the government does, Congress controls the budget.
They were going to go 2 more times in 1973 but righ after the 6th landing, Congress cut NASA's funding for any more moon exploration.
And even though they have the Shuttle and International Space Station and Hubble and robotic missions to other planets to support, NASA is currently running on a budget of only about 20% of what it had during the missions to the moon.
They ARE planning on going back, though. But THIS time they are planning on building long-term bases on the lunar surface. THAT takes a LOT more money and studying and even protection from radiation & such things than just going for 3 days and coming back.
Oh -- and SOME technology has advanced. But rockets are rockets. Nothing much has changed with them. We're still using the Atlas booster for a lot of our space launches and its basic designed is from the 1950's.
There is NOTHING in this video which is actual evidence of the landing being a hoax. Do the math on the reflectivity of the lunar surface and you can see that there is enough natural reflected light for all the pictures.
ya u got it ur a fucken moron, someone could show u the set where they shot the hoax that was the moon landing and ud still find a way to claim its bullshit! lol typical american moron u are! lol what a clown
@kazachat1 --Think about it. How can two light sources make sharply defined shadows go in different directions? If there were two light sources, the light from one of them would wash out the shadow that is from the other one.
This video doesn't want you to think for yourself. It wants you to be hypnotized by its story. Like: If there was another light source for the astronaut on the ladder, then why was the shadow on the ground black?
There was only one source of primary light -- the sun.
The pictures in this video show that the pictures were NOT faked. The moon's surface is very reflective. That's why you can see the astronaut in the supposed "shadow."
I guess these guys have never gone outside in the moonlight.
And the "background is the same in different shots." Yeah. If you take a picture of a mountain in the background that's 10 miles away from a couple different spots, it still looks like the same mountain.
I belive they went....cos they're gonna look pretty dumb if somebody actually goes one day and finds no U.S. flags and no trace of a lander.
How embarrassing would that be?
ThePurpleHarpoon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We landed on the moon not once but six times. That is one hell of a conspiracy eh? 24 different astronauts. You deniers are just plain insane in the brain. * Apollo 11 landed 20 July 1969 * Apollo 12 landed 19 November 1969 * Apollo 14 landed 5 February 1971 * Apollo 15 landed 30 July 1971 * Apollo 16 landed 20 April 1972 * Apollo 17 landed 11 December 1972
TheThumper49 3 months ago
The six lunar landings are a solid FACT. Taught in every academic institution around the world. The Moon rocks and six foot intact core tube samples have been studied around the world and verified to be non-terrestrial. The massive amount of scientific data returned has spawned hundreds of peer reviewed scientific studies and is still studied today. Impossible to fake that amount of evidence for so long. It is the most documented human achievement ever.
Rob260259 4 months ago
You guys are NUTS! There is no Cold War now and NASA has sent probes to other planets, even to far away Jupiter. These probes have sent amazing photos, so that means they made it through the earth's radiation belt. Nasa has even landed unmanned rovers on Mars and Venus that sent back amazing photos. For what reason will the government 'conspire' this time?
AtilladHun 4 months ago
@AtilladHun your key word there is UNMANNED they have sent unmanned probes and rovers to other planets but the arguement is that humans couldnt survive the trip throught the radiation belts and that is only one of the long list of impossibilties that people are supposed to and blindly do believe for this hoax to work if they could send people to the moon in the 70s why havent they sent anyone even close to the moon or any other planet since?
Flembo9 4 months ago
@Flembo9, There are NO two photos of ANY mountains which are "exactly the same."
I once argued for 2 days with someone who claimed that 2 photos looked "exactly the same" until I showed him my measurements from the photos he was arguing about which showed a difference in perspective of 30 degrees between two points of reference on the mountains he was talking about.
And "radiation"?? hahaha. That objection is a joke. How much radiation is in the Van Allen belts? Can't answer that one, can you?
prosperomage 4 months ago
@prosperomage the radiation within the van allen belt is about 2500 rem and the belt its self is roughly 6000km thick, a leathal amout of radiation to a human is anything over 400rem
Flembo9 2 months ago
@Flembo9 -- No.You need to learn some things about radiation if you are going to draw any conclusions about it that are based on reality.
"REM" cannot even be used as a unit of measure for radiation in a location. You cannot say: "the radiation in a place is so-many rem." REM is a measure of total radiation absorbed over a period of time.
If you do not say: REM per minute or REM per hour or REM per year or something like that, then just using "so many REM in a place" has no meaning.
prosperomage 2 months ago
@Flembo9 -- All that being said, there IS a series of articles which exists in several places on the internet that gives 2,500 rem as the explosure in the Van Allen belt. The FULL sentence is:
"A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year."
So your 2,500 rem is actually rem per YEAR. There are 8766 hours in an average year, so that is less than 0.3 rem per hour.
prosperomage 2 months ago
@Flembo9 -- Now, escape velocity for Earth's gravitation is 25,000 miles per hour. So how long would it take them to travel across 8,000 miles at 25,000 miles per hour?
8,000 / 25,000 = 0.32 one third of an hour.
So at that rate, according to YOUR numbers, they would get one third of 0.3 rem or 0.09 rem of radiation exposure from the Van Allen belt.
So: What were you saying about Van Allen belt radiation?
How dangerous would it have been?
prosperomage 2 months ago
American heroes = Rene, Sibel, Kaysing!
johncopey 1 year ago
@johncopey American Failures and charalatans. Go to NYC and catch Sibrel in his new job as a cab driver. LOL
SpreadingtheMuse 4 months ago
NASA is a dirty HOAX
nasafakedit 1 year ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
Since 1973 no astronaut has ever been further than 500 miles from the earth
and yet Nasa claimed they sent 6 space missions and landed on the moon
Nasa is a dirty HOAX
nasafakedit 1 year ago
Comment removed
DoomNoMore 1 year ago
wtf ...is that flag flopin?
on the moon,wuahhhaaaa
scubudoo 2 years ago
What about the light reflected by the Earth? It is indeed the reason why we see the entire Moon, even when not in a full moon phase.
Kouber 2 years ago
NASA is done in 2010 so bye bye nasa!!!!!!there broke!the lies caught up 2 them!
dwcraminator 2 years ago 8
OK. So if it was a hoax, then why do people who make video "documentaries" to try to prove it was a hoax feel the need to lie?
Or do they merely not understand anything about optics or photography ... No, that can't be the case, because some of them CLAIM to be "experts" in optics.
For instance, the "proof" that the background was "fake" because it was in two different shots. It is OBVIOUS that the two different shots were taken from different perspectives on the same distant mountains.
nesokretep 2 years ago
@nesokretep same distant mountains? when even nasa claimed they were taken at locations at least 2 milles apart how could the mountains look exactly the same from 2 different locations at least 2 miles apart? thats just proposterous, not to mension how good the pictures are from cameras they couldnt even see out of bullsh*t
Flembo9 4 months ago
The narrator claims that there are "errors."
But NO actual "errors" are shown in the video.
For instance: If you do the math on the reflectivity of the lunar surface vs. the metalic lander and white space suits, you see that there IS sufficient reflected light to see the shadow side of the lander and astronauts. In the shadow, they should be just as visible as the lunar surface in the background ... and they are.
nesokretep 2 years ago
do you believe that landing on the moon is true?
are you working in nasa??
slowkash 2 years ago
No. I don't work for NASA. I merely understand most of the physics and engineering behind how they did the landings.
Are you saying that the moon landings were a hoax?
Do you work for the guys who sell the books on the"hoax" theory?
nesokretep 2 years ago
@nesokretep for now i believe its a hoax cause i havent seen any NASA documentarty defending their moon landing
slowkash 2 years ago
Why should NASA make a documentary to "defend" the moon landing?
They've made plenty of documentaries and displays and given research material to indpendent scientists, etc. over the years to show what they did. No need to "defend."
The orignal landing was independently tracked, not only by NASA but by the Russians, who had their own un-manned probes at the same time.
nesokretep 2 years ago
The telemetry was monitored by THOUSANDS of engineers, not just at NASA, but at many private, independent companies, who were vitally interested in the functioning of each sub-system.
AND -- on top of all of that ... Each one of these videos by people who believe the thing was a "hoax" just shows their wrong interpretation of physics.
For instance: one guy thinks the shadows prove "two light sources" but they really just prove that the surface had hills on it.
nesokretep 2 years ago
@nesokretep ok.. i stand corrected in this statement... if it really happened, why won't they send another astronauts to prove that it really happened.. now we have greater technology.. they can take more clear shots using modern video cam so we can prove that it really happened.. thats my only point of view
slowkash 2 years ago
NASA doesn't control it's own budget. Just like everything else the government does, Congress controls the budget.
They were going to go 2 more times in 1973 but righ after the 6th landing, Congress cut NASA's funding for any more moon exploration.
And even though they have the Shuttle and International Space Station and Hubble and robotic missions to other planets to support, NASA is currently running on a budget of only about 20% of what it had during the missions to the moon.
nesokretep 2 years ago
They ARE planning on going back, though. But THIS time they are planning on building long-term bases on the lunar surface. THAT takes a LOT more money and studying and even protection from radiation & such things than just going for 3 days and coming back.
Oh -- and SOME technology has advanced. But rockets are rockets. Nothing much has changed with them. We're still using the Atlas booster for a lot of our space launches and its basic designed is from the 1950's.
nesokretep 2 years ago
The errors are not unfortunate, they are completely intentional and planned, orchestrated, shrewdly imagined.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
Ha! In SOME of those pictures ... like 1.52 they show parallel shadows and try to claim that they are not.
In all other shots, parts of the shadows are obscured by hills & things so their "non parallel" lines mean nothing.
nesokretep 2 years ago
There is NOTHING in this video which is actual evidence of the landing being a hoax. Do the math on the reflectivity of the lunar surface and you can see that there is enough natural reflected light for all the pictures.
nesokretep 2 years ago
ur a fucken moron
Stantheman2011 2 years ago
I'm a "fucken moron" ???
Is that some sort of technical or scientific argument you have there?
LOL! Really persuasive set of measurements and logic! Good job!
(come back when you have, like, a fact or something ... or at least after you learn how to spell "fucking."
LOL
nesokretep 2 years ago
ya u got it ur a fucken moron, someone could show u the set where they shot the hoax that was the moon landing and ud still find a way to claim its bullshit! lol typical american moron u are! lol what a clown
Stantheman2011 2 years ago
Funny... Even the man that designed the cameras cannot explain how there can be so much clarity... The colors and crystal clear...
supermembrax69 2 years ago
The man that designed the cameras did not say anything at all about clarity.
The narrator who is promoting the hoax theory is planting that idea into the video, not the camera expert.
As for the shadows pointing in different directions and the shadow side of the lander ... that's all explainable with natural light.
If there were two light sources the LM shadow would not be that sharp. The shadows prove that there is only ONE primary light source -- the sun.
nesokretep 2 years ago
@nesokretep why were the shadows facing to different directions if really there was only one source of light?
kazachat1 3 weeks ago
@kazachat1 --Think about it. How can two light sources make sharply defined shadows go in different directions? If there were two light sources, the light from one of them would wash out the shadow that is from the other one.
This video doesn't want you to think for yourself. It wants you to be hypnotized by its story. Like: If there was another light source for the astronaut on the ladder, then why was the shadow on the ground black?
There was only one source of primary light -- the sun.
prosperomage 3 weeks ago
is that piece of garbage they left there
still there , why cant we see it.
bibafortuna 2 years ago
The pictures in this video show that the pictures were NOT faked. The moon's surface is very reflective. That's why you can see the astronaut in the supposed "shadow."
I guess these guys have never gone outside in the moonlight.
And the "background is the same in different shots." Yeah. If you take a picture of a mountain in the background that's 10 miles away from a couple different spots, it still looks like the same mountain.
nesokretep 2 years ago
Oh, and I dare ANYBODY to make dust have the pattern that it does in these shots when it gets kicked up in an atmosphere.
This video is pretty good proof of the moon landing.
nesokretep 2 years ago
Even the man that designed the cameras cannot explain how there can be so much clarity... The colors and crystal clear...
Besides, for the dust pattern, I'm sure that if you replace the dust with sand and that you slow the video, you can get a very close pattern...
supermembrax69 2 years ago
Nasa spokesman:
"There are so many (photos), it would be an exercise in futility to answer all of those (questions)?"
What? The questions are not worth investigating because there are too many questions? Doublespeak.
Tothe2012 2 years ago
Where are the stars in the background? You can see some stars in even the most polluted city in the U.S.
How did the astronauts focus the manual focus Hasselblad cameras?
Terrible fakes. Brett Ratner could have done a better job LOL.
Tothe2012 2 years ago
he dissmiss everthing stupid asshole!
fenomen01 3 years ago