Great work on debunking these conspiracy theorists. Could you devote an episode to tackling the Mars conspiracy which argues that the 'red' sky lander photos are doctored to preclude visual evidence of breathable air on Mars?
@playbiamped Phil Plait's already done that; I think it's one of the TAM videos. Bascially, the camera those pictures are taken from is infrared, so to make it visible they shift the wavelengths up into the red. The ones taken from the other camera are real color.
How did NASA know what the temperature was on the moon back then? There was only one satellite in space and it wasn't theirs. How did they know the astronaut suits would hold up to it, and the radiation from the sun and stars?
Do you know ANY of those answers? Or was "radiation" just a big scary word you copied?
Dont believe hoax newbs. I am an actual radiologist. I work with actual radiation. I know that 'space" radiation is mostly particles like protons, and those are blocked by plastic. Thats rudimentary rad safety every tech knows. Anything you read on a dork webpage is provable manure
@SMuse No sir! The word radiation is not scary to me at all. So tell me how your trip 100,000 miles out, past the Van Allen radiation belts were. That's where you would have to go to do all that radiation testing you're talking about. I know why NASA stopped going to the Moon in 1972, cause of all the satellites in space now. If NASA launched a Moon mission today, the world would be all over it! Satellites would be able to see if there is life inside of whatever is attempting to go to the Moon.
@ironman197268 Idiot, the radiation doesn't EXTEND 100,000 miles out! The inner belt, which has the MOST radiation, only goes out about 4,000 miles! And it comes in to about 350 miles, which is where the ISS orbits (although its orbit, like all orbits, is elliptical, and the inner belt is irregular, so it only goes through once every few orbits, and an orbit is 91 minutes).
In truth, the astronauts don't get any more radiation in the ISS than you would in a 757.
@ironman197268 What didn't make sense? The fact that you were wrong? The figures about the VA Belt? The fact that the ISS goes through it several times a DAY?
Maybe it only doesn't make sense to people as idiotic as hoaxtards...
We sent unmanned probes out to moon orbit before we sent people. Probes with Rad dectectors. Thanks for missing the obvious.
BTW , you couldnt answer a single one of my questions.
You have no idea how much radiation was out there. If you can say how much there was, then you have no business saying it was a fatal amount, now do you? ;)
@shanedk Neutrino radiation isn't very dangerous on account of neutrinos having a very small mass and no electric charge. A neutrino can easily pass through the entire Earth without interacting with anything at all.
here are some facts: if we actually did go to the moon 5 times, why haven't we been back ?? it would be much easier today ??
why was there nothing tangible left on the moon to show were were there ? like a solar powered beacon or a large flag or anything visible with a small telescope to indicate we had actually been to the moon ??
the rediation in space and the extreme temps would have ruined all the film ( not to mention the astronauts) how did we get around that problem ?
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 etc.
You learn new things by DOING new things, not spinning your wheels repeating yourself for 40 years doing the same thing over and over. It you're suggesting we've accomplished nothing since the apollo missions then you're a simple idiot about the space program.
The word was spelled "RADiation," and is easily googlable as such. Since you murdered its spelling you hardly sound like an expert on the topic.
Guess what, I am
I'm a radiologist. And I tell you radiation was NOT nor ever was a problem. Most space radiation is particle radiation: Alpha and beta. And Alpha and beta can be blocked by plastic, let alone a metal spaceship
Anything you think you read online was likely by an ignorant whose never worked a day in radiation in his life
@nootaramus -- Let's just take one example of the silly objections people seem to think they are making to the moon landings:
What about the temperature?
People go into earth orbit in capsules and shuttles and space stations and they go outside in their space suits and do work. People from many countries do this all the time.
If the heat in space is some sort of "impossible" problem, how do they do this?
What is there about the moon which would make the temperature problem worse?
@nootaramus -- And one more: What about the stars?
How would you propose taking pictures of stars from the lunar surface?
The camera shutter setting was set to take pictures of the surface, which is what they were studying.
How would stars show up with the shutter speed set to take pictures of the surface?
They would need an especially slow shutter speed. And why would they bother doing that? There is nothing special about the view of stars from the moon that you can't do easier from orbit.
I just know all you Bogoshitty fans are voting for Pailin as soon as someone tells the bitch when it is the month of November. You guys scream for a government to rob you and your kids from any gainful future.
A government that "robs" would be anything run by the tax and spend Democratic party. Go ahead and let Obama double the tax rate and then tell us how much more clever you are. ;)
No, but singling out one person of one party (and then deny that you did, as imnaz did), is the height of paranoid fear-mongering which I will not tolerate at all.
I have to admit, you Bogoshitty fans and Apaullogists are quite clever. Every time I browse through these sites I often observe conversation threads that have nothing to do with science, space technology, Apollo program, astronauts, aerospace, astronautic, mathematics, physics, logic, inconsistencies in photography, astronomy ( starless pictures eliminated that cause) or anything else relevant. I do find lots of insults, cursing and condescending language usually instigated by the apaullogists.
AAaahh, so I'm an idiot for not signing on to your highly opinionated speculative guesses at what looks like who the hell knows who jumping around in a fabric "space suit" on a fake ass set that looks like earth complete with wild life jumping around on the set with reflections, converging shadows, duplicate landing sites and all the rest of the plain site details that show that this was a trick of the tricky dick administration for 40 billion dollars of tax payers money for duct tape and foil.
@SpreadingtheMuse Sure, Richard M. Nixon was not the guy who stated that we shall go to the moon and do the others things not because they are easy, and he wasn't the guy who increase the number of military advisors and troops in Vietna but he is the main most responsible enabler for this huge hoax due to the fact that ALL of the fake moon landings occured only during his administration in office, abruptly ceased during his resignation spurred on by the threat of impeachment and never continued.
How can Nixon be an enabler for the hoax when all the planning for the hoax must have occurred months or years before he was even elected?
You're trying to give a ridiculous timeline, that the missions were going to be real under LBJ, and then "abruptly" changed to hoax the second Nixon came in. That is a stupid misunderstanding of the time needed, money already spent, and scientists already working, and its retarded on the face of it.
"abruptly" is a big scary word, but I doubt you've put any thought into this.
"Abruptly" means that there was no debate, no discussion at all. Just an overnight slash. Well, can you prove that? Can you prove Congress DIDNT spend weeks debating? Can you prove they DIDNT have a vote? Can you prove it all happened overnight?
(Hint, the Congressional record is public domain, but let me guess, you were too stupid to go look it up).
@SpreadingtheMuse There was no debate in congress when congress agreed overwhealmingly to have the Nixon administration investigated for fraud and crimes against the nation in order to have the impeachment proceedings move forward. after the Nixon administration the lunar program (and I will quote myself) "ABRUPTLY" ceased.
There have never been any trips to the moon and there will never be any manned voyages until man establishes authentic scientific knowledge of the universe and astral realm
@imnazhole Yes, there absolutely was! The Senate Watergate Committee was created by Congress to investigate it, and their findings resulted in the introduction of articles of impeachment in the House. The ONLY reason it didn't go any further was because Nixon's resignation made it moot.
Your knowledge of history is as pathetic as your knowledge of physics.
@shanedk Let me copy and paste my earlier statement that started this side digression and I quote:
"... Thank God for impeachment proceedings!"
I actually watched the Watergate hearings, as they were broadcast live on network television back in the days of antenna TV with 10 to 11 television stations. The nation witnessed as the shameful and scandalized Nixon made his rambling speeches about his life, his mother and his what the fuck else and resigned from office but you do not pay attention.
@shanedk There was no debate but a vote taken in congress to proceed with the hearings to determine if impeachment proceedings should take place. Such actions are part of the protocol for impeachment proceedings. Again:
Thank GOD for impeachment proceedings! XD... and there was no lunar landings Mr. Bogoshitty! XD
@imnazhole That vote was SO THAT THEY COULD DEBATE. So, you're either a complete ignoramus, or you're a LIAR. With the impeachment process, you CANNOT DEBATE WITHOUT A VOTE. That vote takes the House into the impeachment debate; if, at the end, they vote to impeach, then the Senate debates whether or not the President is guilty.
@shanedk well, I am smart enough to know that resigning from the most powerful office in the world when the house of representatives is conducting preliminary measures toward impeachment proceedings is either a sign of guilt or cowardice and judging from the apparent abundance of balls that Nixon exhibited, I would say cowardice was not the cause of his disgraceful demise.
"investigate" Which, unfortunately for you, had absolutely zip zero notta to do with Apollo. So you're trying the classic conspiraholic stall tactic: Using ONE conspiracy as your proof for ANOTHER conspiracy.
AKA Making up your story as you go. ;)
You admit you never checked the congressional record. You admit you have no proof whatsoever of "abrupt." (But it is a big scary newb word, now isnt it?)
So you throw in Nixon, making up your story as you go.
Dont be a newb tard and claim "no trips to moon" like you're any kind of expert. THANK GOD we have 8th grade conspiratard wannabes to tell us these things. I almost listened to a professional engineer who works for a living.
Bottom line, you didnt check the congressional record, therefore you cant prove "abruptly."
Therefore, you were caught bluffing. ;)
Its your fault for having nonexistent evidence, not ours for pointing it out.
I see, but I do not need a photographer to explain it to me when you have already explained it - AWAY! Which does not explain what the hopping object in the video was at all because you were not there and I at least saw it when it was broadcast. Years later you are born and try to tell me what it is, seems kind of lame and desperate. I would respect an answer like "I actually do not know" more than all of this desperate tone and sweeping explanations.
@imnazhole WTF does you seeing it at the time have to do with anything? It's a LENS FLARE! It's OBVIOUSLY a lens flare! Why does it move EXACTLY COUNTER to the brightest part of the astronaut's suit? FRAME BY FRAME???
@shanedk WAITAMINUTE!! What do you mean "brightest part of the asstronot's suit"?? With no atmosphere there should be no "brightest spot" due to the fact that the moon has no atmosphere (i.e. moisture in the lower surface area causing refraction and changes in brightness due to uneven heating of the moisture in the atmosphere by the sun) and according to your precious "photographer" wisdom, they all say that bright spots are caused by artificial lighting! Want to step in any more bear traps son?
@imnazhole Specularity has NOTHING to do with any atmosphere, IDIOT. It has to do with the angle of the camera to the angle of the light source. THAT'S IT. Again, ask ANY photographer. And if you claim to have heard otherwise from a photographer, then YOU ARE A LIAR.
Lens flare? Is that related to refraction which is a result of atmospheric reflection to which you need an atmosphere with moisture? Actually it looks like a frog hopping on the surface to me.
@imnazhole Um...no. It's exactly what it says: a flare caused by light reflecting off the lens of the camera. Ask any photographer to explain it to you.
scam people out of some money, hmmm, like the nixon administration did to the American tax payers with nasa in the late sixties till the early seventies until nixon was forced to resign from the presidency. There have been no "moon landings" since the end of the nixon administration in 1973... hmmm???
@imnazhole So you admit that you already knew that there could be no possible means of claiming that the Nixon administration could have been trying to increase funding to NASA, unless you wanted to tell clumsy lies about the Nixon administration.
@SpreadingtheMuse Make up your pretended mind: Are you claiming that Nixon was trying to increase funding for Apollo (for which almost all the money for all planned landings had already been spent by 1968) or are you claiming that Congress closed down Apollo prematurely, for almost no savings?
Nixon had little to anything to do with Apollo, either with planning, follow-through, or funding. It was all Congress. Whereas money had been allotted for Apollo, that never means Congress couldnt allot it BACK. Building the rockets (and I dont know how many further rockets were built beyond Apollo 18), doesnt mean the rest of launching them is totally free.
@SpreadingtheMuse The largest costs was all the R&D (which includes pretty much the entire cost of Mercury and Gemini, which were both essential for Apollo). Once built, it was relatively cheap to actually do the missions. The savings of canceling the last three moon missions was fairly modest, since they had already built all the equipment anyway.
@shanedk -then the guy is obviously deranged or a calculated conman that thrives of peoples stupidity and ignorance,just like barf sibrel and percy of liarshire.i think this kind of activity should be made illegal with immediate effect,as more young people are buying into this whacked out notion it could impact on future progess in space development
Regarding the beginning scene with the jump: Given that the wires couldn't have been hidden, and there was an extra 80 lbs on his back, how could he have done this on earth?
..NASA could have squashed all this a long time ago had they wanted to. Why not set -up a good quality telescope and let us look at the junk left behind on the surface...would'nt that end the debate?
No telescope can do it. That stuff is REALLY REALLY tiny as far as space stuff goes. The LRO is taking pictures where the descent stages can be clearly seen, and sometimes even the foot trails left by the astronauts.
The moon is 240,000 miles away. The LM was 14 feet in diameter. You would need a resolution of TWO ONE-THOUSANDTHS OF AN ARCSECOND to get the LM to show up as AN INDIVIDUAL PIXEL, and that's not even getting into the problems with atmospheric refraction!
.....I think the reason why I say this has to do with earth orbiting satalites that engineers are claiming, can actually read a licence plate on a car. For some reason I also thought that the moon was 186,000 miles away.
First of all, I don't see how you can read a license plate with an aerial photo, no matter the resolution.
Second, assuming a 1-inch resolution for reading the license plate, this could be achieved from low-earth orbit with a resolution of .1 arcseconds--two orders of magnitude greater than what you'd need to see the LMs as just one pixel wide.
...I was under the impression that a satelite lense could be manuvered to get a visual at an angle, not nessesarily straight down. On TV I seem to remember seeing close-ups of Mars....and it is a whole lot farther away than the moon.
..Thank you sir, I'll check them out. But I have to ask you, why are all these people saying the landing is a hoax? How did they develop such an idea?
Psychosis? Or maybe, since the moon is part of the heavens which according to the Bible is strictly God's realm, it all just HAD to be a hoax. And then they find any way they can to support their hoax beliefs. Just take a look at the world around us. Millions of starving people worldwide. Enough weapons to kill everything on Earth several times over. Yet we have civilized aspects to our society. I say that mankind is just borderline sane.
Shane, no, it is not over. There still are some delusional ignorant moonhoax conspiracy theorists that shout "fake!". Even when standing on the moon, next to a descent stage of Apollo 11, these hoaxtards will shout "fake!".
That wouldn't end it. Already HBs are claiming LRO image hoax since it took NASA (actually the University of AZ) a week to publish the first LRO images of the Apollo landing sites. Jarrah already is claiming that the images are faked.
...With all the trouble we have here...it all just seems a bit of a waste of money. With the country on the verge of bankrupcy, maybe we should hold off on this kind of thing.
Telescopes are meant to see LARGE objects, not small ones. Thats the whole reason telescopes and microscopes are not interchangeable. The rule of physics that governs focus and focal length infers that its impossible for a telescope to focus on any object smaller than it is.
Van allen radiation belt had never been deadly to anyone especially when you pass through the pôle where there is a hole in the radiation belt....as apollo s/c did.... It is only deadly for electronic..but it is quiet easy to avoid it
2) WHAT radiation? Do you even know how much is 'deadly?'
3) What KINDS of radiation? This is a whole science you know, and there are several radiation types. You cant just cut and paste "two words" and pretend that makes you clever.
Before you post another cut and paste cliche, I want you to DEFINE exactly what "deadly" radiation is. For I'm betting you dont have the first foggiest idea.
You see, I am a radiologist. I know how many types of radiation there are, I know which kinds hurt and which dont. Because of that, I am completely certain that whatever info you have on 'deadly' is unadulterated manure.
Cosmo: "You pro-Apollo people keep ignoring my question about the Chinese space walk"
Look what you're writing Cos. How am I to answer questions about a Chinese spacewalk? I don't even eat Chinese food. I know very little about their spacewalk. Ask me about Apollo and I'll try to provide you with answers. Ofcourse, the fact of the matter is that you do not want answers, you only like 'anomalies', 'suspicious' footages and 'leads' to conspiracies.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"I know very little about their spacewalk."
Watch these two videos.
/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=NVbBFwdml dA
"Proof China Faked Their Spacewalk"
/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=kG4Z_r38Z DE
"About paper and bubbles of ShenzhouVII"
This is Apollo-related because NASA says the Chinese space walk was real. We are discussing NASA's credibility. I say NASA's position on the Chinese space walk puts a big dent in its credibility. What do you say? This is fall all you pro-Apollo people.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Stop ducking the questions about the Chinese space walk. NASA says it was real when it was obviously faked. This is an Apollo-related issue. Their saying it was real destroys NASA's credibility. Please address this issue.
It's just about your faith Cosmo. You conspiracists are anxious and desperately searching for really EVERY little bit of negativity or anomaly that can be directly or indirectly connected or related to NASA, to suggest that they are unreliable and to 'prove' that the moonlandings were faked. Moonlandings.... 40 years ago!
You people seem to be cornered and you're trying to play down the importance of this issue because you can't say the Chinese space walk was real without looking silly and you can't say it was faked because you'll go against NASA's official position. This is the point where the audience in the debating hall would be roaring with laughter.
You people are about as impressive as the Black Knight in this clip below.
I just watched the moonfaker series, or as much as I can get online and I have to say after seeing it that anyone who believes the moon landing was faked is so stupid they probably have to wear a helmet and get force fed applesauce.
Maybe NASA does need little girlie boys like shane to hide behind. They never seem to mind whatsoever. Or a Pseudo hollywood science group like mythbusters which they furnished all their equipment and resources to for free. Poor old Ralph Renee. They wouldn't even give him ONE single apollo moonglove to test..LOL! :)
Oh god what a truly scary frightening thought. I didn't know Halloween came early this year. Well as the saying goes and is apparently true.."for every pot there is a cover.." Hope they both look like your wife. On the other had if they look like you, you wouldn't need need to buy them masks..
What that i can cut you to pieces with every thing I say before you can remember of your own name? Thanks, but it really that isn't all that hard considering you furnish me with plenty of material TBW. Yes, I am scum shane, your very worst nightmare. You make me laugh. That's why enjoy insulting you so much. The things you post are priceless.
"Because personal insults always trump argument, amirite? Pss.. shane like insults and insulting others. Apparently you have never watched any of his videos. What he doesn't like is getting back better then he gives.. ;)
Nope I enjoy being called scum.? Scum is useful shane isn't.. Well I suppose to defend wimply NASA he is. Shane apparently believes NASA is so defenseless and worthless they can't defend their own projects all by themselves. Maybe they can't.
"Well I suppose to defend wimply NASA he is. Shane apparently believes NASA is so defenseless and worthless they can't defend their own projects all by themselves."
He provided you with evidence, and you have nothing but insults, like a creationist/dogmatist.
What evidence is that? You better check your facts dude Jarrah White proves this guy is an out and out phony . More then once in fact. look his moonfake series up. You fail at having a function organ inside your cranium. At least i have one.
What an idiot that first guy was. You are filming INSIDE the window, not outside it. If you're filming outside it, you would all DIE.
TheHandgunhero 2 months ago
"Encoded with deliberate mistakes"
hear is one to stick in your pipe.
1st people to transmit a signal in FM radio from the moon was Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin.
The inventor of FM radio was.......Edwin Armstrong.
Edwin(Buzz) mothers maiden name was Moon and Neil was Engle (Dutch name meaning Angle in English, ascending from heaven ref)
Now, if I was a pro-con i could use this as "Encoded with deliberate message"proof that workers at NASA were trying to send signals out to the world?
Ashmansworth 6 months ago in playlist All my videos
Of course you're going to get all of these religious psycho paths who quote lines from the bible.
dalek14mc 8 months ago
Great work on debunking these conspiracy theorists. Could you devote an episode to tackling the Mars conspiracy which argues that the 'red' sky lander photos are doctored to preclude visual evidence of breathable air on Mars?
playbiamped 1 year ago
@playbiamped Phil Plait's already done that; I think it's one of the TAM videos. Bascially, the camera those pictures are taken from is infrared, so to make it visible they shift the wavelengths up into the red. The ones taken from the other camera are real color.
shanedk 1 year ago
percy,why are you lying like this,are you short of cash?you are too smart to lie like this and think your right
guitarnashelter 1 year ago
@guitarnashelter Kinda sad that so many people lap that shit up too.
andromidius 7 months ago
How did NASA know what the temperature was on the moon back then? There was only one satellite in space and it wasn't theirs. How did they know the astronaut suits would hold up to it, and the radiation from the sun and stars?
ironman197268 1 year ago
@ironman197268
What about the Radiation from sun and stars?
How much was it?
What kind was it?
How many rem per hour?
Do you know ANY of those answers? Or was "radiation" just a big scary word you copied?
Dont believe hoax newbs. I am an actual radiologist. I work with actual radiation. I know that 'space" radiation is mostly particles like protons, and those are blocked by plastic. Thats rudimentary rad safety every tech knows. Anything you read on a dork webpage is provable manure
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SMuse No sir! The word radiation is not scary to me at all. So tell me how your trip 100,000 miles out, past the Van Allen radiation belts were. That's where you would have to go to do all that radiation testing you're talking about. I know why NASA stopped going to the Moon in 1972, cause of all the satellites in space now. If NASA launched a Moon mission today, the world would be all over it! Satellites would be able to see if there is life inside of whatever is attempting to go to the Moon.
ironman197268 1 year ago
@ironman197268 The amount of radiation the astronauts got was measured on every trip. It was minimal.
The ISS goes through the belt several times a day.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Did they measure it here, or on the Moon? Does the ISS go through it 100,000 miles out of Earths atmosphere?
ironman197268 1 year ago
@ironman197268 Idiot, the radiation doesn't EXTEND 100,000 miles out! The inner belt, which has the MOST radiation, only goes out about 4,000 miles! And it comes in to about 350 miles, which is where the ISS orbits (although its orbit, like all orbits, is elliptical, and the inner belt is irregular, so it only goes through once every few orbits, and an orbit is 91 minutes).
In truth, the astronauts don't get any more radiation in the ISS than you would in a 757.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Shane, that did not make a lick of sense!!
ironman197268 1 year ago
@ironman197268 What didn't make sense? The fact that you were wrong? The figures about the VA Belt? The fact that the ISS goes through it several times a DAY?
Maybe it only doesn't make sense to people as idiotic as hoaxtards...
shanedk 1 year ago
@ironman197268
You couldnt name the types of radiation in space
You couldnt name the rem/hr values
You cant name the fatal radiation value
Why should we believe you know anything at all?
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@ironman197268
We sent unmanned probes out to moon orbit before we sent people. Probes with Rad dectectors. Thanks for missing the obvious.
BTW , you couldnt answer a single one of my questions.
You have no idea how much radiation was out there. If you can say how much there was, then you have no business saying it was a fatal amount, now do you? ;)
You dont know shit.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@ironman197268
There's only two kinds of radiation: Photonic and Particle. Gamma/Xray vs Alpha/Beta. Particle radiation can be blocked by almost anything.
But guess what, "SPACE" Radiation, Solar Wind radiation, is particle. A capsule or ANY space suit can stop it.
What are you pretending to know? Are YOU a Rad Tech like me? Have YOU passed the Rad Core Exam? Ever hold a Geiger in your whole life?
YOU walk into an alpha field like I've done and then tell me that you know anything.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Isn't there also neutrino radiation? Or is that just another kind of particle radiation?
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Neutrino radiation isn't very dangerous on account of neutrinos having a very small mass and no electric charge. A neutrino can easily pass through the entire Earth without interacting with anything at all.
bluecode320 1 year ago
@bluecode320 Yes, but it does, in fact, exist, even if it's not a problem.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Neutrinos are funky. They're particles with no mass. But they're harmless to human anyway. With no mass and no charge they have no way to affect us.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
Comment removed
10047paul 1 year ago
Oh, and how about an episode about some censorships too, abstinence only sex indoctrination, and some political ideologies!
rebelq1 1 year ago
@rebelq1 You know, there's a section in the Bogosity.tv forum where you can post ideas for future episodes.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Ah, OK! Sure!
rebelq1 1 year ago
here are some facts: if we actually did go to the moon 5 times, why haven't we been back ?? it would be much easier today ??
why was there nothing tangible left on the moon to show were were there ? like a solar powered beacon or a large flag or anything visible with a small telescope to indicate we had actually been to the moon ??
the rediation in space and the extreme temps would have ruined all the film ( not to mention the astronauts) how did we get around that problem ?
no stars ?!
nootaramus 1 year ago
@nootaramus "why was there nothing tangible left on the moon to show were were there?"
You mean, like the laser reflectors that scientists are still using every day?
ALL of your bogus questions have been covered to death, over and over and over again.
shanedk 1 year ago
@nootaramus
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 etc.
You learn new things by DOING new things, not spinning your wheels repeating yourself for 40 years doing the same thing over and over. It you're suggesting we've accomplished nothing since the apollo missions then you're a simple idiot about the space program.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@nootaramus
The word was spelled "RADiation," and is easily googlable as such. Since you murdered its spelling you hardly sound like an expert on the topic.
Guess what, I am
I'm a radiologist. And I tell you radiation was NOT nor ever was a problem. Most space radiation is particle radiation: Alpha and beta. And Alpha and beta can be blocked by plastic, let alone a metal spaceship
Anything you think you read online was likely by an ignorant whose never worked a day in radiation in his life
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@nootaramus -- Let's just take one example of the silly objections people seem to think they are making to the moon landings:
What about the temperature?
People go into earth orbit in capsules and shuttles and space stations and they go outside in their space suits and do work. People from many countries do this all the time.
If the heat in space is some sort of "impossible" problem, how do they do this?
What is there about the moon which would make the temperature problem worse?
nesokretep 1 year ago
@nootaramus -- And one more: What about the stars?
How would you propose taking pictures of stars from the lunar surface?
The camera shutter setting was set to take pictures of the surface, which is what they were studying.
How would stars show up with the shutter speed set to take pictures of the surface?
They would need an especially slow shutter speed. And why would they bother doing that? There is nothing special about the view of stars from the moon that you can't do easier from orbit.
nesokretep 1 year ago
You sound like The Annoying Orange.
nameofthepen 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Conspiracy theorist... Do not be deceived by the impossibilities of today or you will be crushed by the realities of tomorrow!
Puff29646 1 year ago
What a moron.
indiasucksalways 1 year ago
LMFAO! XD Yes, it was!! XD!
imnazhole 1 year ago
I just know all you Bogoshitty fans are voting for Pailin as soon as someone tells the bitch when it is the month of November. You guys scream for a government to rob you and your kids from any gainful future.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole
A government that "robs" would be anything run by the tax and spend Democratic party. Go ahead and let Obama double the tax rate and then tell us how much more clever you are. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Not that the Republicans are any better.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
No, but singling out one person of one party (and then deny that you did, as imnaz did), is the height of paranoid fear-mongering which I will not tolerate at all.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Excuse me but... you are getting a little off topic here.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole You're the one who brought up Palin etc. If anyone got off-topic it's you.
shanedk 1 year ago
@imnazhole
YOU brought up Palin. Dont whine about your own act.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
I have to admit, you Bogoshitty fans and Apaullogists are quite clever. Every time I browse through these sites I often observe conversation threads that have nothing to do with science, space technology, Apollo program, astronauts, aerospace, astronautic, mathematics, physics, logic, inconsistencies in photography, astronomy ( starless pictures eliminated that cause) or anything else relevant. I do find lots of insults, cursing and condescending language usually instigated by the apaullogists.
imnazhole 1 year ago
A simple "YES" to the bear trap question would have done just fine. XD
imnazhole 1 year ago
AAaahh, so I'm an idiot for not signing on to your highly opinionated speculative guesses at what looks like who the hell knows who jumping around in a fabric "space suit" on a fake ass set that looks like earth complete with wild life jumping around on the set with reflections, converging shadows, duplicate landing sites and all the rest of the plain site details that show that this was a trick of the tricky dick administration for 40 billion dollars of tax payers money for duct tape and foil.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole
Since Nixon wasnt even President during the first half of all Apollo missions, does this mean your "research" was laughingly shallow? ;)
"Nixon" is an easy word to cut and paste, but its an obvious bluff word by newbs who dont have a foggy clue about history.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Sure, Richard M. Nixon was not the guy who stated that we shall go to the moon and do the others things not because they are easy, and he wasn't the guy who increase the number of military advisors and troops in Vietna but he is the main most responsible enabler for this huge hoax due to the fact that ALL of the fake moon landings occured only during his administration in office, abruptly ceased during his resignation spurred on by the threat of impeachment and never continued.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole
How can Nixon be an enabler for the hoax when all the planning for the hoax must have occurred months or years before he was even elected?
You're trying to give a ridiculous timeline, that the missions were going to be real under LBJ, and then "abruptly" changed to hoax the second Nixon came in. That is a stupid misunderstanding of the time needed, money already spent, and scientists already working, and its retarded on the face of it.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@imnazhole
"abruptly" is a big scary word, but I doubt you've put any thought into this.
"Abruptly" means that there was no debate, no discussion at all. Just an overnight slash. Well, can you prove that? Can you prove Congress DIDNT spend weeks debating? Can you prove they DIDNT have a vote? Can you prove it all happened overnight?
(Hint, the Congressional record is public domain, but let me guess, you were too stupid to go look it up).
Spare us newb fear-mongering. You dont know jack.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse There was no debate in congress when congress agreed overwhealmingly to have the Nixon administration investigated for fraud and crimes against the nation in order to have the impeachment proceedings move forward. after the Nixon administration the lunar program (and I will quote myself) "ABRUPTLY" ceased.
There have never been any trips to the moon and there will never be any manned voyages until man establishes authentic scientific knowledge of the universe and astral realm
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole Yes, there absolutely was! The Senate Watergate Committee was created by Congress to investigate it, and their findings resulted in the introduction of articles of impeachment in the House. The ONLY reason it didn't go any further was because Nixon's resignation made it moot.
Your knowledge of history is as pathetic as your knowledge of physics.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Let me copy and paste my earlier statement that started this side digression and I quote:
"... Thank God for impeachment proceedings!"
I actually watched the Watergate hearings, as they were broadcast live on network television back in the days of antenna TV with 10 to 11 television stations. The nation witnessed as the shameful and scandalized Nixon made his rambling speeches about his life, his mother and his what the fuck else and resigned from office but you do not pay attention.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole YOU said there was "no debate in Congress." YOUR words. That was WRONG.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk There was no debate but a vote taken in congress to proceed with the hearings to determine if impeachment proceedings should take place. Such actions are part of the protocol for impeachment proceedings. Again:
Thank GOD for impeachment proceedings! XD... and there was no lunar landings Mr. Bogoshitty! XD
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole That vote was SO THAT THEY COULD DEBATE. So, you're either a complete ignoramus, or you're a LIAR. With the impeachment process, you CANNOT DEBATE WITHOUT A VOTE. That vote takes the House into the impeachment debate; if, at the end, they vote to impeach, then the Senate debates whether or not the President is guilty.
You're just an idiot all around.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk well, I am smart enough to know that resigning from the most powerful office in the world when the house of representatives is conducting preliminary measures toward impeachment proceedings is either a sign of guilt or cowardice and judging from the apparent abundance of balls that Nixon exhibited, I would say cowardice was not the cause of his disgraceful demise.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole Actually, I'd say it was both. But neither had to do with Apollo, and thinking so is just delusional insanity.
shanedk 1 year ago
@imnazhole
"investigate" Which, unfortunately for you, had absolutely zip zero notta to do with Apollo. So you're trying the classic conspiraholic stall tactic: Using ONE conspiracy as your proof for ANOTHER conspiracy.
AKA Making up your story as you go. ;)
You admit you never checked the congressional record. You admit you have no proof whatsoever of "abrupt." (But it is a big scary newb word, now isnt it?)
So you throw in Nixon, making up your story as you go.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@imnazhole
Dont be a newb tard and claim "no trips to moon" like you're any kind of expert. THANK GOD we have 8th grade conspiratard wannabes to tell us these things. I almost listened to a professional engineer who works for a living.
Bottom line, you didnt check the congressional record, therefore you cant prove "abruptly."
Therefore, you were caught bluffing. ;)
Its your fault for having nonexistent evidence, not ours for pointing it out.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@imnazhole
"fake ass"
Thank god you have actual movie-makers who agree with you.
OH WAIT! You dont. ;)
Whereas listening to newb rambles is amusing, we prefer to listen to experts who actually work in these jobs for a living.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
I see, but I do not need a photographer to explain it to me when you have already explained it - AWAY! Which does not explain what the hopping object in the video was at all because you were not there and I at least saw it when it was broadcast. Years later you are born and try to tell me what it is, seems kind of lame and desperate. I would respect an answer like "I actually do not know" more than all of this desperate tone and sweeping explanations.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole WTF does you seeing it at the time have to do with anything? It's a LENS FLARE! It's OBVIOUSLY a lens flare! Why does it move EXACTLY COUNTER to the brightest part of the astronaut's suit? FRAME BY FRAME???
Idiot.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk WAITAMINUTE!! What do you mean "brightest part of the asstronot's suit"?? With no atmosphere there should be no "brightest spot" due to the fact that the moon has no atmosphere (i.e. moisture in the lower surface area causing refraction and changes in brightness due to uneven heating of the moisture in the atmosphere by the sun) and according to your precious "photographer" wisdom, they all say that bright spots are caused by artificial lighting! Want to step in any more bear traps son?
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole Specularity has NOTHING to do with any atmosphere, IDIOT. It has to do with the angle of the camera to the angle of the light source. THAT'S IT. Again, ask ANY photographer. And if you claim to have heard otherwise from a photographer, then YOU ARE A LIAR.
shanedk 1 year ago
Lens flare? Is that related to refraction which is a result of atmospheric reflection to which you need an atmosphere with moisture? Actually it looks like a frog hopping on the surface to me.
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole Um...no. It's exactly what it says: a flare caused by light reflecting off the lens of the camera. Ask any photographer to explain it to you.
shanedk 1 year ago
scam people out of some money, hmmm, like the nixon administration did to the American tax payers with nasa in the late sixties till the early seventies until nixon was forced to resign from the presidency. There have been no "moon landings" since the end of the nixon administration in 1973... hmmm???
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole You mean the President who shut down the program after it completed only 2/3 of the planned landings?
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey If you are referring to the late Richard Nixon then yes. Thank God for impeachment proceedings!
imnazhole 1 year ago
@imnazhole So you admit that you already knew that there could be no possible means of claiming that the Nixon administration could have been trying to increase funding to NASA, unless you wanted to tell clumsy lies about the Nixon administration.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@imnazhole There was never an impeachment proceeding against Nixon. THIS is how ignorant you are.
shanedk 1 year ago
@evensgrey
Congress shut down Apollo, not the President. It was a budget thing, not an executive order.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Make up your pretended mind: Are you claiming that Nixon was trying to increase funding for Apollo (for which almost all the money for all planned landings had already been spent by 1968) or are you claiming that Congress closed down Apollo prematurely, for almost no savings?
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey Those two statements are not mutually exclusive. Congress is NOT the President.
shanedk 1 year ago
@evensgrey
Nixon had little to anything to do with Apollo, either with planning, follow-through, or funding. It was all Congress. Whereas money had been allotted for Apollo, that never means Congress couldnt allot it BACK. Building the rockets (and I dont know how many further rockets were built beyond Apollo 18), doesnt mean the rest of launching them is totally free.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse The largest costs was all the R&D (which includes pretty much the entire cost of Mercury and Gemini, which were both essential for Apollo). Once built, it was relatively cheap to actually do the missions. The savings of canceling the last three moon missions was fairly modest, since they had already built all the equipment anyway.
evensgrey 1 year ago
someone please murder Percy and Barf Sibrel
kargaroc386 1 year ago
these two sickos sibrel and percy,are good at manipulating footage,faking videos and selling it to people who are uneducated in the matter
guitarnashelter 1 year ago
@guitarnashelter
I agree. They have cashed in on the hoax.
lukequixotesanjose 1 year ago
This is fun. Nice work!
trubblemuffin 2 years ago
This video was votebotted. Interesting how insecure those hoaxers really are.
WecksyRex 2 years ago
Actually, I think it was collateral damage when I got hit by creationist votebots.
shanedk 2 years ago
Eh, creationists, hoaxers, what's the diff? Other than they all disagree with one another.
MortalTodd 2 years ago
Kent Hovind believes the moon landings were filmed at CBS Studios.
shanedk 2 years ago
He would know, eh? Professional fraudster, after all.
MortalTodd 2 years ago
@shanedk -then the guy is obviously deranged or a calculated conman that thrives of peoples stupidity and ignorance,just like barf sibrel and percy of liarshire.i think this kind of activity should be made illegal with immediate effect,as more young people are buying into this whacked out notion it could impact on future progess in space development
guitarnashelter 1 year ago
@shanedk Probably the same people.
GBart 1 year ago
Video claiming moon landing was hoax:
watch?v=3Vrge-8F6rw
My video debunking the debunkers:
watch?v=alSgk-eGrIQ
Cocks :-)
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stupid video and worst shirt ever
MaxSynths 2 years ago
Everyone, getting your "space" radiation info from Loose change is like getting your Brain Surgery from a 3rd grader.
That Cosmo has to reach so low to find anyone who agrees with him just proves how stupid his whole dumb idea is.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
I was naive enough to try to have a sensible discussion with the person you mentioned. Ugh.
camilleri63 2 years ago
You really can't. I've found that the bulk of them have severe psychological problems.
Xtro2005 1 year ago
Why all the name calling? please kids......
bluenail90 2 years ago
Regarding the beginning scene with the jump: Given that the wires couldn't have been hidden, and there was an extra 80 lbs on his back, how could he have done this on earth?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is a terrible attempt to keep the brainwashed feeling good about there delusions.
The so called moon landings were all a HOAXED. Your explanations are as bad as the HOAX itself.
2xtream 2 years ago
Stop smoking crack 2xtream.
Rob260259 2 years ago
obvious troll is obvious
chris3325 2 years ago
"brainwashed"
Fabricating one flimsy conspiracy as your "proof" for another flimsy conspiracy only proves how stupid both ideas are.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
actually this is a pretty good video. I agree with you but, opposing views are not to be discarded until fully analyzed.
SunBeamsan 2 years ago
..NASA could have squashed all this a long time ago had they wanted to. Why not set -up a good quality telescope and let us look at the junk left behind on the surface...would'nt that end the debate?
vachief 2 years ago
No telescope can do it. That stuff is REALLY REALLY tiny as far as space stuff goes. The LRO is taking pictures where the descent stages can be clearly seen, and sometimes even the foot trails left by the astronauts.
shanedk 2 years ago
...If we can send man to the moon..I would think by this time a telescope capable of focusing on the LEM platform would'nt be to difficult.
vachief 2 years ago
The moon is 240,000 miles away. The LM was 14 feet in diameter. You would need a resolution of TWO ONE-THOUSANDTHS OF AN ARCSECOND to get the LM to show up as AN INDIVIDUAL PIXEL, and that's not even getting into the problems with atmospheric refraction!
shanedk 2 years ago
.....I think the reason why I say this has to do with earth orbiting satalites that engineers are claiming, can actually read a licence plate on a car. For some reason I also thought that the moon was 186,000 miles away.
vachief 2 years ago
First of all, I don't see how you can read a license plate with an aerial photo, no matter the resolution.
Second, assuming a 1-inch resolution for reading the license plate, this could be achieved from low-earth orbit with a resolution of .1 arcseconds--two orders of magnitude greater than what you'd need to see the LMs as just one pixel wide.
shanedk 2 years ago
...I was under the impression that a satelite lense could be manuvered to get a visual at an angle, not nessesarily straight down. On TV I seem to remember seeing close-ups of Mars....and it is a whole lot farther away than the moon.
vachief 2 years ago
Those Mars close-ups were taken by a probe that actually landed on the surface of Mars, not from a telescope.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Satellites that can read a license plate are only 200 miles up.
But the moon is 200,000 miles up. Being a 1000 times further away ought to be a problem for any camera....
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
...I'm sure your right...so here is the answer. Let's put a satellite in orbit around the moon and then we can see for ourselves, and end this thing.
vachief 2 years ago
We HAVE! The LRO has taken pics of several landing sites. The descent stages and even the astronauts' tracks are visible!
So, then, you tell me: is it over?
shanedk 2 years ago
..I'd like to see the LEM platform ..do you have pictures?
vachief 2 years ago
They're at BadAstronomy . com and lots of other places.
shanedk 2 years ago
..Thank you sir, I'll check them out. But I have to ask you, why are all these people saying the landing is a hoax? How did they develop such an idea?
vachief 2 years ago
Psychosis? Or maybe, since the moon is part of the heavens which according to the Bible is strictly God's realm, it all just HAD to be a hoax. And then they find any way they can to support their hoax beliefs. Just take a look at the world around us. Millions of starving people worldwide. Enough weapons to kill everything on Earth several times over. Yet we have civilized aspects to our society. I say that mankind is just borderline sane.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
Shane, no, it is not over. There still are some delusional ignorant moonhoax conspiracy theorists that shout "fake!". Even when standing on the moon, next to a descent stage of Apollo 11, these hoaxtards will shout "fake!".
Rob260259 2 years ago
That wouldn't end it. Already HBs are claiming LRO image hoax since it took NASA (actually the University of AZ) a week to publish the first LRO images of the Apollo landing sites. Jarrah already is claiming that the images are faked.
GoneToPlaid 2 years ago
....That's an awful lot of trouble to go through...just to prove the hoaxers are wrong. They must be quite concerned.
vachief 2 years ago
Actually the aim of the LRO is to map the moon and highlight areas of the surface for further study and future manned missions.
The Apollo images were just a bonus.
ytmoog 2 years ago
...With all the trouble we have here...it all just seems a bit of a waste of money. With the country on the verge of bankrupcy, maybe we should hold off on this kind of thing.
vachief 2 years ago
Well, I am not an American so I do not overly care.
But NASAs budget is hardly that big that it would make a difference to your situation.
Less than a half percent of the budget I think.
ytmoog 2 years ago
...The whole point I think is ....stop spending money we don't have...what possible good can come from mapping the moon? Can't it wait?
vachief 2 years ago
Telescopes are meant to see LARGE objects, not small ones. Thats the whole reason telescopes and microscopes are not interchangeable. The rule of physics that governs focus and focal length infers that its impossible for a telescope to focus on any object smaller than it is.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Van allen radiation belt had never been deadly to anyone especially when you pass through the pôle where there is a hole in the radiation belt....as apollo s/c did.... It is only deadly for electronic..but it is quiet easy to avoid it
TER13031984 2 years ago
Morons
TheGavinb 2 years ago
animefan2k9: libel is not allowed on this channel. Your comment was deleted. First warning.
shanedk 2 years ago
two words deadly radiation
animefan2k9 2 years ago
Three words: WHAT deadly radiation? See Episode 3.
shanedk 2 years ago
Three questions:
1) Says Who? No radiologist says that
2) WHAT radiation? Do you even know how much is 'deadly?'
3) What KINDS of radiation? This is a whole science you know, and there are several radiation types. You cant just cut and paste "two words" and pretend that makes you clever.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
from the sun & stars comes all forms of deadly radiation. do the research yourself and stop being a jackass.
animefan2k9 2 years ago
OH NO! "Deadly" radiation.
Not the fluffy kind? Not tickly? ;)
No, its all DEADLY! And its coming to GET YOU!
;)
Before you post another cut and paste cliche, I want you to DEFINE exactly what "deadly" radiation is. For I'm betting you dont have the first foggiest idea.
You see, I am a radiologist. I know how many types of radiation there are, I know which kinds hurt and which dont. Because of that, I am completely certain that whatever info you have on 'deadly' is unadulterated manure.
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago
Do you even know the definition of radiation?...
"Do the research"? You havn't even told us what type of radiation, or what wavelength is dangerous to a human being.
Gorilla199abuser 2 years ago
"Do you even know the.....a human being. "
There's some stuff about space radiation in post #23 of this thread below.
s1 (dot) zetaboards (dot) com/LooseChangeForums/topic/51606/1/
(check lik for gaps)
Cosmored 2 years ago
stupid.... get educated please
Amxd 2 years ago
hoaxtards aside.. im certain buzz went to the moon, you can see it in his eyes.
Seriously though.. there are no stars on any nasa foootage since the 1990's. why would that be.
nasa website.. can browse thousands of starless space pictures since the 90's.
Moonlanding a hoax? probably not they had the tech to do it.. and they did it i think.
NASA, the ESA, and the RSP, however, can not be fully trusted, and are certainly withholding information regarding what was/is really found in space.
EdgeStormcrow 2 years ago
"there are no stars on any nasa foootage since the 1990's. why would that be."
It is because stars are a lot dimmer than the sun.
When photographing very brightly lit objects a fast exposure time and small aperture are needed so as to not over-expose the picture.
When photographing stars however you need a very long exposure time in order for them to show up.
ytmoog 2 years ago
cherry picking arguments huh? This certainly isn't kosher.
bwanawanna1 2 years ago
The director of the video neglected to mention he cherry picked the most retarded moon hoax people to refference for his videos..
If the director had seen a UFO or at least knew about them, he may reconsider NASA's words from pure and true gospel of honest space exploration.
Also.. nasa footage has no stars.. even distance approch shots,, isnt das wierd?
EdgeStormcrow 2 years ago
I cherry-picked NOTHING. I started with Bart Sibrel because he was the most prominent and the one most referenced by moon hoaxers.
After Episode 3, the hoaxtards said I just picked a bad one and I should do David Percy, he's the best.
Now, here's a hoaxtard saying I picked the TWO worst. Riiiight...
shanedk 2 years ago
Perhaps you should nominate the best.
If Shane had wanted to go with the most retarded he would have gone with Ralph Renee, now there was a guy with a tenuous grip on reality.
"Also.. nasa footage has no stars.. even distance approch shots,, isnt das wierd?"
Why is that weird?
ytmoog 2 years ago 2
Cosmo: "You pro-Apollo people keep ignoring my question about the Chinese space walk"
Look what you're writing Cos. How am I to answer questions about a Chinese spacewalk? I don't even eat Chinese food. I know very little about their spacewalk. Ask me about Apollo and I'll try to provide you with answers. Ofcourse, the fact of the matter is that you do not want answers, you only like 'anomalies', 'suspicious' footages and 'leads' to conspiracies.
Rob260259 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"I know very little about their spacewalk."
Watch these two videos.
/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=NVbBFwdml dA
"Proof China Faked Their Spacewalk"
/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=kG4Z_r38Z DE
"About paper and bubbles of ShenzhouVII"
This is Apollo-related because NASA says the Chinese space walk was real. We are discussing NASA's credibility. I say NASA's position on the Chinese space walk puts a big dent in its credibility. What do you say? This is fall all you pro-Apollo people.
Cosmored 2 years ago
I say China is completely irrelevant in all ways.
Also what you personally think of Nasa is also totally irrelevant.
What you need is actual evidence. Is this really all you have?
ytmoog 2 years ago 2
"What you need is actual evidence"
Right!
Rob260259 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Stop ducking the questions about the Chinese space walk. NASA says it was real when it was obviously faked. This is an Apollo-related issue. Their saying it was real destroys NASA's credibility. Please address this issue.
Cosmored 2 years ago
I answered the question.
What China has or has not done is irrelevant, as is your personal opinion of NASA.
Is this really all you have?
What you need is actual evidence.
ytmoog 2 years ago 3
It's just about your faith Cosmo. You conspiracists are anxious and desperately searching for really EVERY little bit of negativity or anomaly that can be directly or indirectly connected or related to NASA, to suggest that they are unreliable and to 'prove' that the moonlandings were faked. Moonlandings.... 40 years ago!
Rob260259 2 years ago
You people seem to be cornered and you're trying to play down the importance of this issue because you can't say the Chinese space walk was real without looking silly and you can't say it was faked because you'll go against NASA's official position. This is the point where the audience in the debating hall would be roaring with laughter.
You people are about as impressive as the Black Knight in this clip below.
/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690
"Black Knight"
Cosmored 2 years ago
Cosmo, give me some reasons why China should fake it's spacewalk?
Rob260259 2 years ago
"obviously faked"
Ten out of ten illiterate youtards agree! ;)
Why bother listening to professional engineers and aerospace technicians when you can get all your "facts" from amateurish fear-mongering wannabes? ;)
I didnt start ignoring you soon enough Cosmo. You're the personification of paranoid illiterate innuendo.
(Any response will be ignored unread).
SpreadingtheMuse 2 years ago 8
Damn right! You may ignore this as well Spreading, but you are damn right.
Rob260259 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
[FAKE]
filmed in slow motion with wires
KillTheShill 2 years ago
Ofcourse not, don't be dumb.
Rob260259 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
YOU'RE dumb, son.
KillTheShill 2 years ago
Bye hmr.
Rob260259 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
BYE son [I'm not monkey]
moon landings were fake
KillTheShill 2 years ago
I just watched the moonfaker series, or as much as I can get online and I have to say after seeing it that anyone who believes the moon landing was faked is so stupid they probably have to wear a helmet and get force fed applesauce.
johnrainrules 2 years ago
"I just watched the moonfaker series... force fed applesauce."
You seem to be trying to sway people who don't have the time to watch it. It takes a while to watch but no one who watches it will agree with you .
Do a YouTube search on "MoonFaker".
Cosmored 2 years ago
Yes, that is why about 7 people believe the moon landing was a hoax. Now eat your applesauce.
johnrainrules 2 years ago
Watch the moonfaker series and then see if you believe shane as much as you do now...
stalkervision 2 years ago
Maybe NASA does need little girlie boys like shane to hide behind. They never seem to mind whatsoever. Or a Pseudo hollywood science group like mythbusters which they furnished all their equipment and resources to for free. Poor old Ralph Renee. They wouldn't even give him ONE single apollo moonglove to test..LOL! :)
stalkervision 2 years ago
BTW also the closest he will get to an actual women with that voice and face of his if he actually likes women TBW...
stalkervision 2 years ago
I have two kids, jerkwad.
shanedk 2 years ago
Oh god what a truly scary frightening thought. I didn't know Halloween came early this year. Well as the saying goes and is apparently true.."for every pot there is a cover.." Hope they both look like your wife. On the other had if they look like you, you wouldn't need need to buy them masks..
stalkervision 2 years ago
Thank you for showing your true colors. Everyone here can see the kind of scum that you are.
shanedk 2 years ago
What that i can cut you to pieces with every thing I say before you can remember of your own name? Thanks, but it really that isn't all that hard considering you furnish me with plenty of material TBW. Yes, I am scum shane, your very worst nightmare. You make me laugh. That's why enjoy insulting you so much. The things you post are priceless.
stalkervision 2 years ago
Because personal insults always trump argument, amirite? :P
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
"Because personal insults always trump argument, amirite? Pss.. shane like insults and insulting others. Apparently you have never watched any of his videos. What he doesn't like is getting back better then he gives.. ;)
stalkervision 2 years ago
Don't you think that was a tad uncalled for?
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Nope I enjoy being called scum.? Scum is useful shane isn't.. Well I suppose to defend wimply NASA he is. Shane apparently believes NASA is so defenseless and worthless they can't defend their own projects all by themselves. Maybe they can't.
stalkervision 2 years ago
"Well I suppose to defend wimply NASA he is. Shane apparently believes NASA is so defenseless and worthless they can't defend their own projects all by themselves."
He provided you with evidence, and you have nothing but insults, like a creationist/dogmatist.
You fail at life.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
What evidence is that? You better check your facts dude Jarrah White proves this guy is an out and out phony . More then once in fact. look his moonfake series up. You fail at having a function organ inside your cranium. At least i have one.
stalkervision 2 years ago
Killian.. "We soundly trounced the moon landing hoax " sung to the song... "I like dreaming" youtube.. I Like Dreamin - Kenny Nolan
stalkervision 2 years ago
Killian.."No, that's just what the lizard-people WANT you to think." So in other words your talking about yourself? S/V
stalkervision 2 years ago