Brightness of moon required very short EXPOSURE TIMES! ask any photographer, that is why space station shots rarely show stars in background as well, even though astronauts often remark about the clarity of stars (and the fact that they don't twinkle because of absence of atmposphere)
Look at the background in every single part of ANY Apollo mission film or photograph, including this one.
According to NASA, and the "astronauts", stars, and any other celestial bodies, simply DO NOT EXIST! There are NO stars, no galaxies, no nebulae, no comets, no asteroids, no NOTHING, in ANY NASA film or photo of the so-called Moon landings.
Who wants to try and help NASA lie their way out of this anomaly?
@nycullaSUCKS This tired old rumour has been debunked countless times but somehow still manages to circulate in the minds of people willing to believe anything. You clearly have no more than a tiny fragment of knowledge on this but you speak with such certainty. That is what's sad.
@nycullaSUCKS You're confusing "NEVER" with not having seen it. Are you really so stupid that you think stars and galaxies can be seen during the day? Yes, that's right, the moon has night and day too you imbecile. Also, spout your nonsense without being aware of the photographic capabilities of cameras, especially those of the 60's. The brightness of the lunar surface contrasts so much that the tiny specks of light from stars are not visible.
Look, you hideous, ugly bastard, some of those stars are hardly "little specks of light".
Don't try to tell ME about "relative magnitude", and the shutter speed of the Hasselblad cameras they used. Many of those shots show an amazing stretch of the space "night sky" and NOTHING AT ALL is seen.
Go watch some Star Trek, you ignorant, gullible fool.
@nycullaSUCKS Haha, go take a photo of the stars during the day you disabled degenerate, do you have learning difficulties? It's quite simple, stars cannot be seen when the sun is shining, the moon, space, Earth, anyway. Learn some science you waste of space.
Learn some science? Certainly not from an ignorant cretin who believes the garbage that NASA feeds him!
When the Sun is shining? Pray tell, when is the Sun NOT shining, you irascible idiot? We are talking about photos taken by persons standing on the Moon, a terrain having a 7% rate of light reflection, which in no way could negate exposure of EVERY SINGLE celestial body in the background.
Learn some science? I suggest YOU learn some basic common sense.
@nycullaSUCKS What are you talking about. Listen carefully, when the SUN shines it blocks out ALL stars in the sky. When the photos in question were taken the Sun was shining, it was daytime on the Moon. This mean that the stars on the Moon are invisible because the brightness of the SUN obscures them. I cannot make that any clearer and I sincerely hope that penetrates the firewall of nonsense holding your mind prisoner. All these pathetic little points really have been debunked.
I understand all about 'albedo' and 'apparent magnitude', you ignorant ape. None of which accounts for the absolute absence of ANY OTHER celestial body in EVERY SINGLE ONE of those photos and films.
Even Venus can often be observed during the day, you primitive, pseudo-science junkie!
@nycullaSUCKS Yes but not if it's not there to be seen, those pictures do not give you 360 degree angles of the entire cosmos do they. You are just trolling because nobody is this dumb.
QUOTE: "This mean that the stars on the Moon are invisible..."
The stars on the Moon? I humbly apologize. I did not previously realize that there were stars on the Moon. Nobody told me about that in school, and even Wikipedia makes no mention of it. I am most grateful.
I'll get on to NASA and ask them why they haven't told us about the "stars on the Moon".
NASA: *1974 magazine clipping* New suits are engineered to withstand new higher temperatures for up to 190 degrees Fahrenheit until the external cooling module fails.
NASA: 2011 *2009-2011* Spacesuits can withstand temperatures up to 400 degrees. By today's standards, we can do it. We should.
Russia wasn't ready. And maybe there's politics involved, who knows.
About that last scence where the module blasts of from the moon: I'm not saying it didn't happen, but is that the actual footage, it is it somekind of rehearsel/simulation or something? The camera angle and the fact that it seems to "follow" the module....Seems weird for an un-manned camera, even with a lot of work on the images afterwards.
@vetzaaak Yeah Russia was going to go to the moon but abandoned the idea, and it was said "i am not sending any man on the moon to die" - they were worried about the radiation belt, the lunar itself needed 6 feet of lead to protect them from it.....their lunar was made out of aluminium :S
Well, the Americans did go to the moon. Its an important part of US and world history and its sad that there are people out there who try to question what did happen.
@Kenezei911 "its sad that there are people out there who try to question what did happen." - Perhaps you could indulge me in wondering what it would be like if people did not question. I put it to you that it would be much more sad than anything you could recognise.
are you some kind of idiot? the last scene would be impossible to fake, look at all the tiny little pieces of foil and metal that float off. how could that be faked? also CAN EVERYBODY SHUT UP ABOUT TECHNOLOGY. UNLESS YOU ARE AN EXPERT SCIENTIST YOU DONT HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE TO SAY WHAT IS PROBABLE AND IMPOSSIBLE.
@LowleyUK "CAN EVERYBODY SHUT UP ABOUT TECHNOLOGY. UNLESS YOU ARE AN EXPERT SCIENTIST YOU DONT HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE TO SAY WHAT IS PROBABLE AND IMPOSSIBLE." - Absolute bollocks.
@TheSpankymonkey - That is not what you said in your comment. I won't repeat what you said as i am sure you can read it yourself. You do not need to be an expert scientist to have contrary evidence to any branch of science, like your comment suggests. Since no science stands on the authority of any single scientist it is silly to make those kind of comments. So, absolute bollocks. Just ignore the tits, scientists do, governments do, whole space agencies do as to the majority population.
@TheSpankymonkey You've read my comment out of context, its my fault though because I didn't reply to whom I was speaking to, but I said it in reply to the comments saying "We didnt make it to the moon because we didn't have the technology etc etc"
@NanzMediaNetwork if your thinking and saying or the flag did'nt move!!! well it did'nt move because there was a metal post on the top holding the flag.
It's ironic that some conspiracy theorists tend to believe the improbable, yet when something that seemed improbable actually happens they cannot accept it. eg I know of people who think the moon landings are a ridiculous hoax and at they same time believe in shape-shfting reptilians.
The only space missions that "living" humans ever left the earth's magnetic shield! The problem is they didn't know magnetic shield existed at the time of Apollo landings, and their spaceship without any effective shielding didn't turn into a nice microwave oven as soon as they left the earth magnetic shield.
I don't care about the pictures and other "evidence" of the conspiracy theory, however I think they cann't go against the laws of electromagnetics and ignore the sun's radiation.
Yeah, but no. You're wrong here... Even Van Allen (the scientist who discovered the phenomenon you're referring to here) said the radiation from the Van Allen Belt was too minimal to have any long term effect... The astronauts on the moon landing and other missions like it, were protected by the aluminum hull of their vessel. In addition to this, the majority of them have developed cataracts later in life, believed to be a result of this minimal radiation exposure. Do some research.
The astronomers at NASA were well aware of this, and they plotted a route through the weakest of the belt. besides the danger of the belt is in high-energy protons, which is not very diffecult to shield against.
most conspiracy theorists cant even mention 4 types of radiation.
If man leaves the natural pulse of the Earth, he gets sick. The Schumann resonance is essential for our living. I don't think that the astronuts had a Schumann simulator attached to their space suit. The moon landings are a movie...like the planes on 9/11.
Sometimes i wonder that, but at the same time there are many serious questions about the 'moon landing'. I wish they went but i just cant drink the kool-aid on this one. The Van allen belt was so lethal that van allen himself said it would require 2 meters of lead shielding to safely protect the 'nots from radiation. The first geiger experiement encountered so much radiation it pinned the needle and thus subsequetnt meters were shielded. Just how much radiation was there then?
Van Allen said the exact opposite actually, that our astronauts would be unaffected... In either case he was wrong, because the majority of astronauts to travel through the Van Allen Belt developed cataracts later in life. Also, MythBusters PROVED that the flag would only wave in the way it did, in a complete vacuum. Otherwise, when rotated it falls quickly back into place... NASA set up the whole movie set in a vacuum.... right...
Instruments borne aloft by artificial satellites and lunar probes indicate that our planet is encircled by two zones of high-energyparticles, against which space travelers will have to be shielded
The discovery is of course troubling to
astronauts; somehow the human body
will have to be shielded from this radiation,
even on a rapid transit through the
region.
-James Van Allen in "Radiation Belts Around the Earth" March 1959.
Another interesting proof hidden in surah 54:1 is number 1665.
Number 1665 was a year correspond to Sir Isaac Newton a father of modern celestial planetary motion, gravity, physic law of inertia, the action reaction law of motion which led to the development of jet propulsion.
Moon landing is a miracle of human effort stretch back 300 years to Newton era of invention.
i watched apollo 13 today, there is a scene of when tom hanks dreams of walking on the moon, I recommend ppl take a look at that footage because if hollywood cant make it look real then i doubt that the goverment could have faked it in 1969
Tsiolkovsky's earlier work, The Exploration of Cosmic Space by Means of Reaction Devices (1903), Goddard's book is regarded as one of the pioneering works of the science of rocketry, and is believed to have influenced the work of German pioneers Hermann Oberth and Wernher von Braun.
"Russia were far ahead of America in the space race and were set even further back after the Apollo 1 disaster in 1967 setting them even further behind. The 1969 date had to be achieved and they could not leave it to chance, the faked landings were crucial in dealing a knock out blow in the cold war. "
Kennedy extended a hand to Russia, in order to have a joint effort in space.
Big secrets in space are quite valuable, and Kennedy was going to share these with Russia.
The Nazi scientist Von Braun got Americans into space.. An SS officer responsible for thousands of deaths.. Instead of hanging him for war crimes you gave him medals. Well done, great achievement. You can gloss it over with the Patriotism crap, but a Nazi got Americans into space.
Did you ever wonder why the Mercury astronauts were not used in the Apollo program? Because they weren't the "right stuff" to go along with a faked landing.
Russia were far ahead of America in the space race and were set even further back after the Apollo 1 disaster in 1967 setting them even further behind. The 1969 date had to be achieved and they could not leave it to chance, the faked landings were crucial in dealing a knock out blow in the cold war.
why would they risk faking 6 landings in a row, all at different locations? As if pulling one single landing hoax would not be difficult enough, they built 6 more Saturn Vs and all the "studio mockery" you all claim to be fake, and tricked us all perfectly to the minutest of detail... 6 times in a row! you people have a wild imaginations
In 1919, the Smithsonian Institution published Goddard's groundbreaking work, A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes. The book describes Goddard's mathematical theories of rocket flight, his research in solid-fuel and liquid-fuel rockets, and the possibilities he saw of exploring the earth and beyond. Along with Konstantin (cont. above)
The fact is America could not allow for failure, the only option was to fake it. Russia was approaching bankruptcy and welcomed the chance to withdraw from the race.. Russia won in getting the first man in Space.
The moon landings biggest chunk of American Bullshit.. The moon race has only just begun.. Notice the sudden rush for China, Russia and America to get to the moon because this is the first time!
Yes take a look at the lame footage.. and ask why the original video footage..possibly the most important evidence, the one which could put this to rest..has been lost !
Thankyou! You know, you are problably the only person who realizes that. What is wrong with people? We, as humans, do something amazing and you doubt it. It happened, more than once, and we could do it again if we wanted to.
Its a shame they never stood on the top of one of them hills and showed us the view from one of their many video recording cameras but that would have taken alot more warehouse space to film that view. I mean the sun would light up alot more of the moon than just were the landings took place.
Notice how there is light in all directions around the astronauts. The moon has only one side lit from the sun. Artificial lights are surrounding them. =]
The moon reflects a certain percent of the SUN'S visible light. Duh. That has NOTHING to do with the light reflectivity on the surface itself; from surrounding rocks, powder, etc. So, I win. NEXT!
IMO reflectivity has everything to do with what an object's surface reflects. Since the moon's surface is made up out of rocks, dust, etc... the reflectivity of that surface is what it reflects, and that is still 7% (average) of the light (visible ánd invisible) that falls on it, not more, not less. Even a moron should get that.
And since you consider yourself as being so smart, answer this: tell me who filmed the take off from the moon? And how did they get the last shot to earth? NEXT!
Ummm, duh...these are all available on NASA web pages. They used remote cameras with servos for direction and pitch. This is not hard. And if you really don't believe it was done, wait for the Japanese orbit of the moon for far side pics or the Chinese exhibition to the moon, which is planned. They will see what was placed there in 1969--a U.S. flag. Look that up in your Funk & Wagnall.
Yeah right! So you want me to believe that he Americans went all the way up there in plain cold war, and all they've left is a tin, little flag. Well, I'm almost certain that if they really were on the moon, they would have left something that was (still) visible from earth.
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven... ;-)
@Spijkermuis "if they really were on the moon, they would have left something that was (still) visible from earth."
I'm curious what you think could have been left behind that we could see from here. The most powerful telescopes on the planet can't even see the equipment left behind, so, what? You think they should have found a way to bring something larger than the LEM, itself?
Spikermuis, you fucking idiot. Why do you even comment on these things when you're so ignorant? Grow up and educate yourself, then come back and comment.
well ,actually there is actually oxygen in space, so if the moon is to move the slightest faster in space it could cause air particles to push up on the flag
and if u don't understand the whole oxygen in space thing
i'll explain,
there is air particles in space, but they're to far away from each other to make a gust of wind at a natural rate
but if something were to move the slightest bit faster then normal, it might cause air particles to gather into 1 section
Well said snguyenn actually it's fake, look at the flag and then tell me since when theres WIND on MOON wich is a natural satelite WITHOUT atmosphere?(sorry about the bad inglish)
no one has ever landed on the moon 1969 technology to record and to send back yea pulling out a camerra on the moon.. only made this fake to scare the natzis during the cold war to show usa had crazy technology and war tactic crap. EVERYONE KNOWS ITS FAKE. if you think its real your a fuckign noob. only the real is the MARS ROVER --dennis
and at the very last, who film from above of the craft? you can see the craft moving and some camera above, who was there? could you explain that please,thank you.
Its Being Filmed By the Third Astonaut in the Command Module who never set foot on the moon, he was just there to orbit the moon an retrive the Luna Module
Yeah his name was Mike Collins...seriously if you think this was a hoax then you're a complete idiot. Like...you're a raging cockfag retard. Seriously.
No one, the camera was left there, and Nasa panned upwards as the craft left. But they actually panned it up before the craft took off, because it just takes a while for the signal to reach the moon.
dakfeld, Johnson was not president at the time you dumbass! My stepdad watched the rocket take off in Florida, dumbass! I watched it on TV live, dumbass! This video is a montage of many missions, the lunar rover was not until Apollo 15; the camera footage of the lunar takeoff was not until Apollo 15; since the camera was mounted on the ROVER. Mission control didn't get the filming right (tilting the camera up to follow along)until 16 and 17. I remember all of this as it happened! Dumbass!
Did it have a tramsmitter also to beam the shot back to earth, or did they send someone back to collect the reel of film from the camera to have it processed?
So how much would this camera and transmitter powerful enough to beam a signal back to earth weigh? This was 1969 remember! Not forgetting the shielding around the camera to make sure all that radiation didnt fry the film and electronics!! A lead box!!
Thats not what I asked you, I asked how much this camera with panning motor and transmitter and lead shielding weigh! Who operated the upwards pan when the pod lifted off? Was it a remote contol camera with a transmitter and panning motor and lead shielding? How much would it weigh in 1969?
So this 60's remote control camera with a panning motor in a lead shielded box with a transmitter --- how heavy would it be? Let me help you! Say 500lbs??
Lets try another way. How big was it? Would it be visible from earth with a decent telescope? Have you got a photograh of this amazing artefact on the lunar surface?
Humzarizvi, if you look through a telescope, can you see the original landing? or the flag? How about the fact that after the flag was put up, the bottom was WAVING, THERE IS NO AIR IN SPACE! Also, who took the footage of Armstrong taking the first step hmmm? or the take off?
This footage is a mish mash of different missions; from the first landing to the last - there was no lunar rover until Apollo 15 in 1971- the Apollo 16 and 17 (Dec. 1972) missions also used rovers. Its funny how people are arguing about something they lack even the most basic knowledge of and are to ignorant to do any research but think they know something-idiots are more intellegent.
I've seen videos of this same act from different angles. There must have been several cameras going at the same time.
People who have questions aren't idiots. People should not accept without question because they can be taken advantage of. After all, Nixon and Johnson were presidents at the time and both had moral issues.
The most funny thing in this matter is their logic: "if you believe in that landing, you're naive and gullible!". Aren't they? In their believe to another conspiracy theory? World is strange...
The only things faked were the Hoax believer's wives orgasms
charliegoodboy 4 months ago
Brightness of moon required very short EXPOSURE TIMES! ask any photographer, that is why space station shots rarely show stars in background as well, even though astronauts often remark about the clarity of stars (and the fact that they don't twinkle because of absence of atmposphere)
charliegoodboy 5 months ago
Look at the background in every single part of ANY Apollo mission film or photograph, including this one.
According to NASA, and the "astronauts", stars, and any other celestial bodies, simply DO NOT EXIST! There are NO stars, no galaxies, no nebulae, no comets, no asteroids, no NOTHING, in ANY NASA film or photo of the so-called Moon landings.
Who wants to try and help NASA lie their way out of this anomaly?
It was all faked. Sad - but true.
.
nycullaSUCKS 6 months ago
@nycullaSUCKS This tired old rumour has been debunked countless times but somehow still manages to circulate in the minds of people willing to believe anything. You clearly have no more than a tiny fragment of knowledge on this but you speak with such certainty. That is what's sad.
LowleyUK 6 months ago
@LowleyUK
It has NEVER been debunked. You were just HOPING it had been.
nycullaSUCKS 6 months ago
@nycullaSUCKS You're confusing "NEVER" with not having seen it. Are you really so stupid that you think stars and galaxies can be seen during the day? Yes, that's right, the moon has night and day too you imbecile. Also, spout your nonsense without being aware of the photographic capabilities of cameras, especially those of the 60's. The brightness of the lunar surface contrasts so much that the tiny specks of light from stars are not visible.
LowleyUK 6 months ago
@LowleyUK
Look, you hideous, ugly bastard, some of those stars are hardly "little specks of light".
Don't try to tell ME about "relative magnitude", and the shutter speed of the Hasselblad cameras they used. Many of those shots show an amazing stretch of the space "night sky" and NOTHING AT ALL is seen.
Go watch some Star Trek, you ignorant, gullible fool.
nycullaSUCKS 6 months ago
@nycullaSUCKS Haha, go take a photo of the stars during the day you disabled degenerate, do you have learning difficulties? It's quite simple, stars cannot be seen when the sun is shining, the moon, space, Earth, anyway. Learn some science you waste of space.
LowleyUK 6 months ago
@LowleyUK
Learn some science? Certainly not from an ignorant cretin who believes the garbage that NASA feeds him!
When the Sun is shining? Pray tell, when is the Sun NOT shining, you irascible idiot? We are talking about photos taken by persons standing on the Moon, a terrain having a 7% rate of light reflection, which in no way could negate exposure of EVERY SINGLE celestial body in the background.
Learn some science? I suggest YOU learn some basic common sense.
Ignorant, gullible idiot.
nycullaSUCKS 6 months ago
@nycullaSUCKS What are you talking about. Listen carefully, when the SUN shines it blocks out ALL stars in the sky. When the photos in question were taken the Sun was shining, it was daytime on the Moon. This mean that the stars on the Moon are invisible because the brightness of the SUN obscures them. I cannot make that any clearer and I sincerely hope that penetrates the firewall of nonsense holding your mind prisoner. All these pathetic little points really have been debunked.
LowleyUK 6 months ago
@LowleyUK
I understand all about 'albedo' and 'apparent magnitude', you ignorant ape. None of which accounts for the absolute absence of ANY OTHER celestial body in EVERY SINGLE ONE of those photos and films.
Even Venus can often be observed during the day, you primitive, pseudo-science junkie!
nycullaSUCKS 6 months ago
@nycullaSUCKS Yes but not if it's not there to be seen, those pictures do not give you 360 degree angles of the entire cosmos do they. You are just trolling because nobody is this dumb.
LowleyUK 6 months ago
@LowleyUK
QUOTE: "This mean that the stars on the Moon are invisible..."
The stars on the Moon? I humbly apologize. I did not previously realize that there were stars on the Moon. Nobody told me about that in school, and even Wikipedia makes no mention of it. I am most grateful.
I'll get on to NASA and ask them why they haven't told us about the "stars on the Moon".
Boy, what a dork!
nycullaSUCKS 6 months ago
@nycullaSUCKS Oops a typo - That ruined my entire point for you I guess. let me amend if you cannot,
This means that the stars VIEWED FROM the Moon are invisible.
Wow a revelation, my entire point makes perfect sense now!
LowleyUK 6 months ago
@nycullaSUCKS Bellend
Carrington123 6 months ago
NASA: The moon's temperatures reach 240-260 degrees Fahrenheit (280 hottest recorded)
NASA: *1974 magazine clipping* New suits are engineered to withstand new higher temperatures for up to 190 degrees Fahrenheit until the external cooling module fails.
NASA: 2011 *2009-2011* Spacesuits can withstand temperatures up to 400 degrees. By today's standards, we can do it. We should.
GarySpatzScam 8 months ago
PROVE IT!! oh you cant can you because of course,, your just an artist..hehe but your grammer and punctuation are faultless. i love you man =0)
wideafukinwake 1 year ago
@wideafukinwake Lol, well at least now you believe me, but thanks nonetheless, and it's spelt "grammar". :D
LowleyUK 1 year ago
@LowleyUK my sarcasum appears to transfer fine on the internet.. excellent. sarcasum check over(END)
wideafukinwake 1 year ago
@wideafukinwake Ha, well yeh, that's a bit more obvious.
LowleyUK 1 year ago
USA
Christopherwilder47 1 year ago
"HOW CAN YOU STILL BELIEVE ITS NOT TRUE! YOU WONT BE HAPPY UNTIL YOU VISIT THE LANDING SITE!"
You are correct. We won't be happy until we see the landing site.
xekusion 2 years ago
Russia wasn't ready. And maybe there's politics involved, who knows.
About that last scence where the module blasts of from the moon: I'm not saying it didn't happen, but is that the actual footage, it is it somekind of rehearsel/simulation or something? The camera angle and the fact that it seems to "follow" the module....Seems weird for an un-manned camera, even with a lot of work on the images afterwards.
vetzaaak 2 years ago 2
@vetzaaak Yeah Russia was going to go to the moon but abandoned the idea, and it was said "i am not sending any man on the moon to die" - they were worried about the radiation belt, the lunar itself needed 6 feet of lead to protect them from it.....their lunar was made out of aluminium :S
hoggy522 1 year ago
@vetzaaak FAIL
Christopherwilder47 1 year ago
Well, the Americans did go to the moon. Its an important part of US and world history and its sad that there are people out there who try to question what did happen.
Kenezei911 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kenezei911 "its sad that there are people out there who try to question what did happen." - Perhaps you could indulge me in wondering what it would be like if people did not question. I put it to you that it would be much more sad than anything you could recognise.
TheSpankymonkey 1 year ago
Comment removed
SPAG22 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheJomogogo 2 years ago
@TheJomogogo Sorry I can't resist being an internet troll. Of course we went to the moon even a creationist christian can see that.
SPAG22 2 years ago
are you some kind of idiot? the last scene would be impossible to fake, look at all the tiny little pieces of foil and metal that float off. how could that be faked? also CAN EVERYBODY SHUT UP ABOUT TECHNOLOGY. UNLESS YOU ARE AN EXPERT SCIENTIST YOU DONT HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE TO SAY WHAT IS PROBABLE AND IMPOSSIBLE.
LowleyUK 2 years ago
@LowleyUK
they didn't float off, they flew. that could happen on earth.
jw16e4 1 year ago
@jw16e4 I said the pieces of metal, not the ship. Learn to read please.
LowleyUK 1 year ago
@LowleyUK "CAN EVERYBODY SHUT UP ABOUT TECHNOLOGY. UNLESS YOU ARE AN EXPERT SCIENTIST YOU DONT HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE TO SAY WHAT IS PROBABLE AND IMPOSSIBLE." - Absolute bollocks.
TheSpankymonkey 1 year ago
@TheSpankymonkey It's not absolute bollocks when people are saying its impossible to reach the moon yet we have proof that we definitely did.
LowleyUK 1 year ago
@TheSpankymonkey - That is not what you said in your comment. I won't repeat what you said as i am sure you can read it yourself. You do not need to be an expert scientist to have contrary evidence to any branch of science, like your comment suggests. Since no science stands on the authority of any single scientist it is silly to make those kind of comments. So, absolute bollocks. Just ignore the tits, scientists do, governments do, whole space agencies do as to the majority population.
TheSpankymonkey 1 year ago
@TheSpankymonkey You've read my comment out of context, its my fault though because I didn't reply to whom I was speaking to, but I said it in reply to the comments saying "We didnt make it to the moon because we didn't have the technology etc etc"
LowleyUK 1 year ago
I'm sorry, it was NOT fake!
They had rehearsed that shot numerous times because of the 2.5 second time delay.
AND. . . .
I'm not sure who said it; but WHY would they FAKE rehearse a landing SEVEN TIMES???????????
diverdave8 2 years ago
there's no man ever landed on the moon..this just a hollywood movie
NanzMediaNetwork 3 years ago
@NanzMediaNetwork
Fruitcake !!
akoni20091 1 year ago
@NanzMediaNetwork if your thinking and saying or the flag did'nt move!!! well it did'nt move because there was a metal post on the top holding the flag.
streetsurfer133 1 year ago
It's ironic that some conspiracy theorists tend to believe the improbable, yet when something that seemed improbable actually happens they cannot accept it. eg I know of people who think the moon landings are a ridiculous hoax and at they same time believe in shape-shfting reptilians.
bluefinger43 3 years ago
The only space missions that "living" humans ever left the earth's magnetic shield! The problem is they didn't know magnetic shield existed at the time of Apollo landings, and their spaceship without any effective shielding didn't turn into a nice microwave oven as soon as they left the earth magnetic shield.
I don't care about the pictures and other "evidence" of the conspiracy theory, however I think they cann't go against the laws of electromagnetics and ignore the sun's radiation.
gorbehnare 3 years ago
Yeah, but no. You're wrong here... Even Van Allen (the scientist who discovered the phenomenon you're referring to here) said the radiation from the Van Allen Belt was too minimal to have any long term effect... The astronauts on the moon landing and other missions like it, were protected by the aluminum hull of their vessel. In addition to this, the majority of them have developed cataracts later in life, believed to be a result of this minimal radiation exposure. Do some research.
jcotterm 3 years ago
The astronomers at NASA were well aware of this, and they plotted a route through the weakest of the belt. besides the danger of the belt is in high-energy protons, which is not very diffecult to shield against.
most conspiracy theorists cant even mention 4 types of radiation.
segmemtum 3 years ago
If man leaves the natural pulse of the Earth, he gets sick. The Schumann resonance is essential for our living. I don't think that the astronuts had a Schumann simulator attached to their space suit. The moon landings are a movie...like the planes on 9/11.
Artifalia 3 years ago
Very Good Marky Boy! Interesting choice of music but it really works - i like it!
canveyboy1972 3 years ago
i cant understand one thing. why there is people telling that the moon landings were fake? what would they gain if it was proved?
LoudS1l3nc3 3 years ago
If the moon landings were proved to be fake then the conspiracy theorists would then try to prove that they did happen.
LowleyUK 3 years ago
Sometimes i wonder that, but at the same time there are many serious questions about the 'moon landing'. I wish they went but i just cant drink the kool-aid on this one. The Van allen belt was so lethal that van allen himself said it would require 2 meters of lead shielding to safely protect the 'nots from radiation. The first geiger experiement encountered so much radiation it pinned the needle and thus subsequetnt meters were shielded. Just how much radiation was there then?
Gromitdog1 3 years ago
Van Allen said the exact opposite actually, that our astronauts would be unaffected... In either case he was wrong, because the majority of astronauts to travel through the Van Allen Belt developed cataracts later in life. Also, MythBusters PROVED that the flag would only wave in the way it did, in a complete vacuum. Otherwise, when rotated it falls quickly back into place... NASA set up the whole movie set in a vacuum.... right...
jcotterm 3 years ago
Instruments borne aloft by artificial satellites and lunar probes indicate that our planet is encircled by two zones of high-energyparticles, against which space travelers will have to be shielded
The discovery is of course troubling to
astronauts; somehow the human body
will have to be shielded from this radiation,
even on a rapid transit through the
region.
-James Van Allen in "Radiation Belts Around the Earth" March 1959.
Gromitdog1 3 years ago
Another interesting proof hidden in surah 54:1 is number 1665.
Number 1665 was a year correspond to Sir Isaac Newton a father of modern celestial planetary motion, gravity, physic law of inertia, the action reaction law of motion which led to the development of jet propulsion.
Moon landing is a miracle of human effort stretch back 300 years to Newton era of invention.
We talk later about this hidden truth!
Let me know if you guys interested.
sumawiganda 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
More interesting proof, God has given us another hint on same surah 54:1 Al Qamar (The Moon)
If we count the rest of verses AFTER 54:1, comes up total 1389 verses. What is 1389 supposed to mean?
Hijri year of 1389 was the year of Apollo 11 Moon Landing. Hijri year of 1389 = 1969 Gregorian year.
Google it : gregorian hijri year converter
Supposedly on the very top one.
Prove it yourself!
Enjoy the miracle!
sumawiganda 3 years ago
Surah 54:01-02 Al Qamar (The Moon)
01
The Hour is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder.
02
And if they see a miracle they turn aside and say: Transient magic.
Well... Indeed the Moon Landing is miracle and yet they turn aside and say Hoax!
It is confirmed and has been prophesied by God himself both the Moon landing miracle and the people who reject the truth.
sumawiganda 3 years ago
Quran confirms apollo 11 landing.
It is in Quran chapter 54 verse 1, Al Qamar (The Moon), it says: The Hour is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder.
Compare the surah 54:01 and the time apollo 11 ascent from the moon...
On July 21, 1969 17:54:01 UT (1:54:01 p.m. EDT), Lunar Module departed Moon collected 21.7 kilograms of Moon rocks.
It was exactly at xx:54:01 the moon has split, 21.7 kgs had left the moon's surface.
Google it : 17:54:01 UT apollo 11
sumawiganda 3 years ago
i watched apollo 13 today, there is a scene of when tom hanks dreams of walking on the moon, I recommend ppl take a look at that footage because if hollywood cant make it look real then i doubt that the goverment could have faked it in 1969
LowleyUK 3 years ago
yeh dont worry it is true, its just people that dont want to believe
LowleyUK 3 years ago
Tsiolkovsky's earlier work, The Exploration of Cosmic Space by Means of Reaction Devices (1903), Goddard's book is regarded as one of the pioneering works of the science of rocketry, and is believed to have influenced the work of German pioneers Hermann Oberth and Wernher von Braun.
dsindc 3 years ago
U mean that you guys think man didnt land on the moon? Poor country pride man
Johnsonss5 4 years ago 4
"Russia were far ahead of America in the space race and were set even further back after the Apollo 1 disaster in 1967 setting them even further behind. The 1969 date had to be achieved and they could not leave it to chance, the faked landings were crucial in dealing a knock out blow in the cold war. "
Kennedy extended a hand to Russia, in order to have a joint effort in space.
Big secrets in space are quite valuable, and Kennedy was going to share these with Russia.
The rest is a shot.
Phobos195 4 years ago
The Nazi scientist Von Braun got Americans into space.. An SS officer responsible for thousands of deaths.. Instead of hanging him for war crimes you gave him medals. Well done, great achievement. You can gloss it over with the Patriotism crap, but a Nazi got Americans into space.
benjihunter 4 years ago
Bullcrap. This from Wikipedia, not the best source, but the facts are confirmed by all publications I've read. Here goes
- article above
dsindc 3 years ago
Did you ever wonder why the Mercury astronauts were not used in the Apollo program? Because they weren't the "right stuff" to go along with a faked landing.
benjihunter 4 years ago
what are you talking about, open your eyes!
LowleyUK 3 years ago
@benjihunter: You mean someone like, I don't know, Alan Shepard (Apollo 14)
Tyrannobeast 1 year ago
Russia were far ahead of America in the space race and were set even further back after the Apollo 1 disaster in 1967 setting them even further behind. The 1969 date had to be achieved and they could not leave it to chance, the faked landings were crucial in dealing a knock out blow in the cold war.
benjihunter 4 years ago
why would they risk faking 6 landings in a row, all at different locations? As if pulling one single landing hoax would not be difficult enough, they built 6 more Saturn Vs and all the "studio mockery" you all claim to be fake, and tricked us all perfectly to the minutest of detail... 6 times in a row! you people have a wild imaginations
britoca 3 years ago 6
edit] A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes
In 1919, the Smithsonian Institution published Goddard's groundbreaking work, A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes. The book describes Goddard's mathematical theories of rocket flight, his research in solid-fuel and liquid-fuel rockets, and the possibilities he saw of exploring the earth and beyond. Along with Konstantin (cont. above)
dsindc 3 years ago
A far greater achievement than faking a moon landing.
benjihunter 4 years ago
The fact is America could not allow for failure, the only option was to fake it. Russia was approaching bankruptcy and welcomed the chance to withdraw from the race.. Russia won in getting the first man in Space.
benjihunter 4 years ago
The moon landings biggest chunk of American Bullshit.. The moon race has only just begun.. Notice the sudden rush for China, Russia and America to get to the moon because this is the first time!
benjihunter 4 years ago
benji hunter you complete fool, so you are telling me that all lunar footage is fake! lmao, get real and do some research.
LowleyUK 4 years ago
Yes take a look at the lame footage.. and ask why the original video footage..possibly the most important evidence, the one which could put this to rest..has been lost !
benjihunter 4 years ago
I agree..all that cheese could feed the world oneday.
benjihunter 4 years ago
It's beautifull...
JeanJacquesBouchet 4 years ago
How did the camera folow the take off of the lunar module? did they leave someone on the moon?
benjihunter 4 years ago
Good one...
Errordemn6 4 years ago
u r a bender carrington - grow up m8
LowleyUK 4 years ago
FUCK U LOWLEY U LITTLE SCHOOLBOY BITCH
Carrington123 4 years ago
what does it matter your'e ultimately all just a bunch of cunts
Carrington123 4 years ago
There are scientific answers to all the questions
LowleyUK 4 years ago
not fake, deal with it
LowleyUK 4 years ago
Nevertheless, I always loved Kubrick's work ;-)
Spijkermuis 4 years ago
There's this one little thing bothering me... Can anyone tell me who filmed the take off from the moon? And how did they get the last shot to earth?
Spijkermuis 4 years ago
Dick head, the answer is acually an the archives. At least find out before you make yourself look so stupid.
IT WAS REMOTELY CONTROLLED FROM THE ROVER!
swinkyuk 4 years ago
Thankyou! You know, you are problably the only person who realizes that. What is wrong with people? We, as humans, do something amazing and you doubt it. It happened, more than once, and we could do it again if we wanted to.
mellophone06 4 years ago 2
Its a shame they never stood on the top of one of them hills and showed us the view from one of their many video recording cameras but that would have taken alot more warehouse space to film that view. I mean the sun would light up alot more of the moon than just were the landings took place.
sovereignpictures 4 years ago
"its one small step for man one giant leap for man kind" best speech in the history of mankind but do you think it was part of a script or what?
BATTLEDROID678 4 years ago
what a fucking ripoff..fake shit
sak514 4 years ago
what a fucking ripoff..lol..cant believe people bought this shit...NASA thinks we are idiots ..so fuck them cunts..
sak514 4 years ago
Notice how there is light in all directions around the astronauts. The moon has only one side lit from the sun. Artificial lights are surrounding them. =]
chrisamari94 4 years ago
You're an idiot. Lunar rock is highly relfective. Read up on light relection/deflection...or go "watch some rad music videos or whatever"
18 year old retard.
Dawgator 4 years ago
Lunar surface reflects about 7%, that's all...
Spijkermuis 4 years ago
The moon reflects a certain percent of the SUN'S visible light. Duh. That has NOTHING to do with the light reflectivity on the surface itself; from surrounding rocks, powder, etc. So, I win. NEXT!
Dawgator 4 years ago
IMO reflectivity has everything to do with what an object's surface reflects. Since the moon's surface is made up out of rocks, dust, etc... the reflectivity of that surface is what it reflects, and that is still 7% (average) of the light (visible ánd invisible) that falls on it, not more, not less. Even a moron should get that.
And since you consider yourself as being so smart, answer this: tell me who filmed the take off from the moon? And how did they get the last shot to earth? NEXT!
Spijkermuis 4 years ago
Ummm, duh...these are all available on NASA web pages. They used remote cameras with servos for direction and pitch. This is not hard. And if you really don't believe it was done, wait for the Japanese orbit of the moon for far side pics or the Chinese exhibition to the moon, which is planned. They will see what was placed there in 1969--a U.S. flag. Look that up in your Funk & Wagnall.
Dawgator 4 years ago
Yeah right! So you want me to believe that he Americans went all the way up there in plain cold war, and all they've left is a tin, little flag. Well, I'm almost certain that if they really were on the moon, they would have left something that was (still) visible from earth.
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven... ;-)
Spijkermuis 4 years ago
@Spijkermuis "if they really were on the moon, they would have left something that was (still) visible from earth."
I'm curious what you think could have been left behind that we could see from here. The most powerful telescopes on the planet can't even see the equipment left behind, so, what? You think they should have found a way to bring something larger than the LEM, itself?
They went. That's all there is to it.
Have a nice day.
IsawaMitaka 1 year ago
Spikermuis, you fucking idiot. Why do you even comment on these things when you're so ignorant? Grow up and educate yourself, then come back and comment.
swinkyuk 4 years ago
well ,actually there is actually oxygen in space, so if the moon is to move the slightest faster in space it could cause air particles to push up on the flag
and if u don't understand the whole oxygen in space thing
i'll explain,
there is air particles in space, but they're to far away from each other to make a gust of wind at a natural rate
but if something were to move the slightest bit faster then normal, it might cause air particles to gather into 1 section
all of you understand now?
spawn1492 4 years ago
dork
monkeyjoe01 4 years ago
ass
spawn1492 4 years ago
retard
monkeyjoe01 4 years ago
cum sucking thundercunt
spawn1492 4 years ago
how many times!!! the flag pole shakes because the astronauts just put it up, not because of wind!! u can clearly tell its not wind.
LowleyUK 4 years ago
Well said snguyenn actually it's fake, look at the flag and then tell me since when theres WIND on MOON wich is a natural satelite WITHOUT atmosphere?(sorry about the bad inglish)
R4f4st4n 4 years ago
no one has ever landed on the moon 1969 technology to record and to send back yea pulling out a camerra on the moon.. only made this fake to scare the natzis during the cold war to show usa had crazy technology and war tactic crap. EVERYONE KNOWS ITS FAKE. if you think its real your a fuckign noob. only the real is the MARS ROVER --dennis
snguyenn 4 years ago
Hey zipperhead...we didn't struggle against "Nazis" in the cold war...that was the communists, idiot. Go eat some Viet hot sauce fish balls, dink.
Dawgator 4 years ago
Someone got out on the wrong side of his bed. Dude....its real. Move on in life.
aeonflux67 4 years ago
MOZART RULES !!!!
Konkolikona 4 years ago 2
and at the very last, who film from above of the craft? you can see the craft moving and some camera above, who was there? could you explain that please,thank you.
labandasubterranea 4 years ago
Its Being Filmed By the Third Astonaut in the Command Module who never set foot on the moon, he was just there to orbit the moon an retrive the Luna Module
muddyfox4x4 4 years ago
Thnkx bro
labandasubterranea 4 years ago
Yeah his name was Mike Collins...seriously if you think this was a hoax then you're a complete idiot. Like...you're a raging cockfag retard. Seriously.
thefunkypenguinz 4 years ago
At the last wen they leave the moon, who was filming?
labandasubterranea 4 years ago
No one, the camera was left there, and Nasa panned upwards as the craft left. But they actually panned it up before the craft took off, because it just takes a while for the signal to reach the moon.
Chemical117 4 years ago 2
THERE IS PROOF OF THE LANDING, IDIOTS!
LowleyUK 4 years ago
Yeah!
I know stupid skeptics
Humzarizvi 4 years ago
who the hell took this footage????o_O
rct7 4 years ago
click on my name and watch my videos
NOmeninatub 4 years ago
dakfeld, Johnson was not president at the time you dumbass! My stepdad watched the rocket take off in Florida, dumbass! I watched it on TV live, dumbass! This video is a montage of many missions, the lunar rover was not until Apollo 15; the camera footage of the lunar takeoff was not until Apollo 15; since the camera was mounted on the ROVER. Mission control didn't get the filming right (tilting the camera up to follow along)until 16 and 17. I remember all of this as it happened! Dumbass!
joelp63 4 years ago
So who stayed behind to film the pod taking off?
PollenB 5 years ago
The camera they left behind
Humzarizvi 4 years ago 3
Did it have a tramsmitter also to beam the shot back to earth, or did they send someone back to collect the reel of film from the camera to have it processed?
PollenB 4 years ago
They had a transmitter
Humzarizvi 4 years ago
So how much would this camera and transmitter powerful enough to beam a signal back to earth weigh? This was 1969 remember! Not forgetting the shielding around the camera to make sure all that radiation didnt fry the film and electronics!! A lead box!!
PollenB 4 years ago
Yes there were many things in 1969 that were provided to NASA and basically wernt availible to the public.
For example jet cars today are availible but are so expensive they are considered "uninvented"
Humzarizvi 4 years ago
Thats not what I asked you, I asked how much this camera with panning motor and transmitter and lead shielding weigh! Who operated the upwards pan when the pod lifted off? Was it a remote contol camera with a transmitter and panning motor and lead shielding? How much would it weigh in 1969?
PollenB 4 years ago
Oh!
sorry I'm not sure how much it would weigh
and it was turned on before they boarded the Lunar Lander again
Humzarizvi 4 years ago
So this 60's remote control camera with a panning motor in a lead shielded box with a transmitter --- how heavy would it be? Let me help you! Say 500lbs??
Lets try another way. How big was it? Would it be visible from earth with a decent telescope? Have you got a photograh of this amazing artefact on the lunar surface?
PollenB 4 years ago
Belive what you want
Well... do you have proof that this "amazing artifact" isnt there?
Humzarizvi 4 years ago
I see you are trying to slip out the back door without being noticed, with that reply. We'll leave it at that.
PollenB 4 years ago
Humzarizvi, if you look through a telescope, can you see the original landing? or the flag? How about the fact that after the flag was put up, the bottom was WAVING, THERE IS NO AIR IN SPACE! Also, who took the footage of Armstrong taking the first step hmmm? or the take off?
kizokuookami 4 years ago
There is WIND on some planets. Search for info before complaining, please.
ChicoNooij 4 years ago
Have you thought about the Lunar gravity before commenting? No. You didn't.
ChicoNooij 4 years ago 2
This footage is a mish mash of different missions; from the first landing to the last - there was no lunar rover until Apollo 15 in 1971- the Apollo 16 and 17 (Dec. 1972) missions also used rovers. Its funny how people are arguing about something they lack even the most basic knowledge of and are to ignorant to do any research but think they know something-idiots are more intellegent.
llerdy 4 years ago 2
So.. Who was filming when they were taking off?
psibud420 5 years ago
The camera that they left behind?!
LowleyUK 5 years ago
The camera they left behind
Humzarizvi 4 years ago
So, who has filming, when they were taking off??
psibud420 5 years ago
I've seen videos of this same act from different angles. There must have been several cameras going at the same time.
People who have questions aren't idiots. People should not accept without question because they can be taken advantage of. After all, Nixon and Johnson were presidents at the time and both had moral issues.
dakfeld 5 years ago
ps...good video though
PhaseChan 5 years ago
Nice video. Whoever thinks that man didn't land on the moon is a real idiot.
xGBxEquinox 5 years ago
Amen!
people are total retartds when they think the landings never happened
Humzarizvi 4 years ago
The most funny thing in this matter is their logic: "if you believe in that landing, you're naive and gullible!". Aren't they? In their believe to another conspiracy theory? World is strange...
Simong91 4 years ago 3
I meant those conspiracy maniacs.
Simong91 4 years ago 3
The whole moon hoax garbage nowdays is mainly politically motivated.
Antiworld23 4 years ago