I just realized that Project Sandbox debunks this video. In sandbox, you claim that NASA used sand for the EVA scenes and the lunar touchdown. When you run a hairdryer to it, the sand makes a crater. So if they were running a large blower on the sand on the moonset -- to get emanating rays -- why is there no crater in the EVA scenes and photos? The fact that there is no crater proves it was shot on regolith in a vacuum.
@unparallelshadows The 16mm reels and EVA footage could very likely have been filmed on different sets. The 16mm was also supposed to have filmed some views of the moon from orbit. They could have used miniatures to film the touchdown scenes and a full scale set for the EVA scenes.
That's how a lot of FX artists do it. The ED-209 scenes in Robocop for example used both full scale and miniature models.
@TheDeJureTure, JW has a million ideas--theories to back up his theories. He needs to explain how acres & acres of sand which always appears finer than sand in photos creates neat boot prints, but doesn't leave astronauts mud covered. Why land a LM with no one in it? What's the point? So it would be found by the LRO 40 years later? I don't believe theories. I believe the mountains of evidence provided by 9 trips to the moon & which holds up to all scientific scrutiny.
Jarrah: One problem, is that you assume that the engine was operating at full thrust when in the reduced gravity of the moon, that would have ejected the Lunar lander back into space, or, as Cernan points out: they would have been IN the crater, had they not SHUT THE ENGINE DOWN before touch-down, or the BACK-PRESSURE MIGHT HAVE DESTROYED THE ENGINE! The second thing, is that the engines were power adjustable. That means that they could have adjusted the thrust output as they descended.
@LunarTuner I'll agree with you about the dust on Earth vs. the Moon, but I think that Jarrah has argued in other videos that sand was used, not dust.
There is a "Third Position" on this whole Moon hoax thing: the landers landed, but no men were aboard. That would explain a lot of things I think.
the V-22 is on rocks, then over a paved road. I'm not seeing a fair compare there. Besides, those props aren't directed like a rocket engine is, are they?
So there wasn't a crater (even though, despite Kaysing's claims, every physicist and engineer competent on the issue will tell you there shouldn't be one in any case), Armstrong noted that on record, and you think you have a 'smoking gun'? So the conspirators didn't think of 'faking' a crater? And Armstrong saw fit to point this out because, what, he had a moment of guilty conscience? Or a lapse in judgement? Perhaps it's in the script? Amazing display of self-deluding intellectual acrobatics.
Even today the Russians and the Americans have not got the technology to land a craft on any planet using reverse thrust so how did they land 40 years ago. The Americans developed the shuttle to land as a plane, on wings. If the Russians want to bring men back it has to be done the same as the Americans and the Russians done 40 years ago, with the aid of parachutes and landing in the sea.If anyone wants proof of a hoax I can get you to prove it to yourself.
@expattaffy1 No, the Russians landed unmanned robotic probes. A FAR easier and do-able task to accomplish using 1970's technology. If you drop sensor beacons (and they did this also with retro reflectors) on the moon before sending the robotic probes it would have been do-able with 1970's technology. You're also not asking the impossible which is to take off from the moon, which does have 1/6 Earth gravity by the way, without rocket fuel to accomplish orbital velocity.
Jarrah, wouldn't the blast also have melted that copper foil? It's wrapped all around everything, even the legs. I saw it in the Smithsonian in the Air and Space Museum and questioned the guards there about how thin it was, and how the walls were made of it and wouldn't have held people without them breaking through the walls. They just laughed and said "yeah, it seems thin, but they wouldn't have been in there very long."
They turned off the engines right before landing, and the reason there is no dust on the footpads is because it was blown away great distances since there was no air resistance.
There are your answers, so now you can stop bitching about this.
@Laurelindo Just a quick correction, bud. Neil didn't hear Buzz when he said, "Contact Light" and so the engine was not cut until all the footpads were already secure on the ground. From the Apollo lunar surface Journal. Either way, just a little friendly correction for you.
I stopped listening when he said that 70dB is half the noise level of a jet engine. If you don't know the difference between a logarithmic and linear scale, I cannot take you serious: + 3dB is twice the noise power. I think you graduating a basic physics class is a hoax too.
Mate, you're aguing an engine has a thrust potential which must create a crater. You're using Cernan's account to bolster this. You thus accept that a descent was made (somewhere) with an early cut-off to prevent a crater.
A key part of the fakery would have been a blast crater. But the reality is the landings are identical and all look at the area below the bell in each case.
You're adept at video handling, but a spoken account is used instead of 17's landing footage?
What was Armstrong landing on when he kept his engine running?
"However, this was not how Neil Armstrong landed his spacecraft on Apollo 11. Instead, as revealed in the official NASA footage, the Eagle's descent engine was still running when the footpads touched the surface. And it remained running for a good five seconds afterwards."
No, mate. I need you to specify how it is a landing that never took place, has identical landing details on two missions you say were different. You argue the descent engine had a specific thrust potential, not reflected in physical evidence beneath the bell.
It might also help your ridiculous case if you could explain why this is such a revealing omission, when NASA made it a point of both spoken and photographed evidence gathering of exactly this detail?
You're actually using the physical proof of an engine's capability and the difference between two landings, to disprove the fact an engine was ever used, in landings that never took place! Oddly enough, the landing sequences are identical.
Your obsession is now making you look ridiculous, mate.
Your problem is, Jarrah, you've trashed everything, but using NASA material as your measure. When you want to trash footage you compare footage to logs, using the logs as factual. When you want to trash craters, you compare spoken word to footage, treating the footage as your benchmark, when you want to trash logs, you compare it with spoken word.
What a mess you're in, mate.
Are you seriously suggesting all those people have lied for more than four decades? LMFAO!
@timpovikings dont use the test tube excuse for having made bad decisions in life. be glad u are here. and start making the good decisions.
its not the entire government. its only a handful of people who need to know. the others are gullible like u anyway and will believe and think what they are told to believe and think. and on top of that, they are scared... scared to loose a life and a career that has taken them decades to achieve. so they don't ask the wrong questions. they stay in line
@timpovikings u talk the talk of the big dicks, but i suspect yours is really tiny. am i right? usually test tubes don't grow to man size, or at least that's what i heard.
When you're life's shit and no-one takes you seriously, you hate getting up to go to a crap job and you just wanted to be born Paul McCartney, when you don't have the balls to buy the stroke mags and your girlfriend won't say the magic words at just the right time, when you believe the kid next door who says he can prove they have an alien at Area 51 and when you just know Kennedy was shot from the stormdrain under the sidewalk, make your pointless life even more complete....
The problem folks have admitting to the rocket thrust spread out is it inpart ruins another part of their hoax theory. Then they cherry pick data to attempt to prove absurd and really nutter ideas....in any event the moon landings by NASA were real as advertised.
You honestly think that NASA, if they hoaxed it, wouldn't have taken the time to make a crater and put some dust on the pads? That they would have overlooked that simple concept (if it were true) in an amazingly complex and expensive scheme? All I can do is laugh. At you.
NoReal Blast Crater because apollo engine nozzel is 2300sq inches and at landing generated only 1.5poundsper sq inch plus in vacuum exhaust spreads out,long flames occur in our atmosphere not in vacuum. Full thrust is not used at landing that only happens in scifi movies. Rocket engine used had throttle.Moon landings were real as advertised.
@starview1 Spread out? it never got a chance to spread out since the nozzle was only a few inches above the surface after touchdown and the engine was shutdown AFTER touchdown. So how would it spread out? And watch NASA original footage itself which also debunks the "spread out" claim, because during landing when LM is 100ft above surface the engine is still powerful enough to kicking up dust right underneath it - and thats 3000 lbs of thrust.
@xismxist You may have missed the fact that the engine throttles down, and while blowing the moon dust (powder)around, it doesnot make the classic hollywood crater,and further the flame or thrust does speadout in the near vacuum of the moon. The throttling feature of the LM engine was quite unique.
@starview1 OMG are you slow?! must i give an explanation after EACH WORD?! 3000 lbs IS when throttled down, that IS the thrust which was used when landing, read again - read right. I didnt miss anything, you on the other hand needs to understand what you are reading.
@xismxist On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! That event is revealed as the US Flag is moved by the expanded thrust. I can send you the data graphs that reveals the 4 to 5ft per second landing event at impact of LM on Moon
@starview1 Your a total joke! now when i proved you wrong you start talking about other, irrelevant things. I dont care how long the flame is. Why did you avoid my questions? there's no way the exhaust was spread out after touchdown with the nozzle only a few inches from the surface, the impact on the surface should had been obvious.
@xismxist ignoring the physics of the flame in a vacuum is infact ignoring the explaination, sadly you don't seem to understand the difference between a flame in atmosphere and a flame in vacuum. Further in the last feet of the landing the LEM was at a rate of aprox 4 and 1/2 feet per sec with engine down to less than the 3000lb Throttled down, to where the LEM struts would absorb the slight impact,not unlike landing gear on aircraft. Throttled down means the engine grad goes to zero thrust.
@starview1 You can make up as many excuses as you want, NASA original footage still shows the touchdown while the engine still running(at 3000 lbs thrust) and it was cut AFTER touchdown, but im glad even YOU finaly realized that the still photos doesnt match the video. For last time, there's no posibility for the exhaust to spread out after touchdown, and Cernan said the back pressure would had cause an explosion but it didnt
@xismxist NASA was quite aware of the chance that serious damage could occur from an uncontrolled thrust,but of course in LEM landing and take off videos one clearly sees the spread out effect of the variable thruster, in one vid you can see the effect on a near by American Flag. Further proof of the spreading effect.
@xismxist So I will tell you again, (when the engine is fired)the thrust is spread out the entire time a vehicle is in space. Why you have a problem with simple physics 101 is I'm sure in part why some folks have a hard time understanding the reality of the NASA moon landings,which of course are recognized as a reality by all serious science around the world. Certainly the benifits of science that NASA and its works have provided to the world for decades.
@starview1 So then why does Gene Cernana say that you are wrong and that he turned off the engine 3meters above the moon other wise it would have dug a huge crater?
If I where to decieve a whole world with a fake moonlanding, I would not forget to digg a crater for the lunar module to mark the landing spot. And I would deff. not talk about how small the crater appear to be if that where the case of lacy diggers.
you begin by saying the 70 Db argument is the most rediciouls you ever heard, as you say its half of a jet engine and thats true, as they are in the range of 140 Db. so it may suprice you that the human voice in normal conversation is at 50-60 Db. A raised voice is at around 70Db, shouting at about 85 Db, and so DB does not scale like you obviously think it does. But i supose its easy enough to missunderstand.
It seems like you are distorting the facts. Nothing you showed between 7:40-8:00 proves that Armstrong kept running the engine 5 seconds after landing. Your reference point, the contact light, probably comes on earlier prompting the Astronauts to cut off the engine. My estimation is that the contact light comes on as soon as the 5.6 foot long "Lunar-surface sensing module" (stick-like features at the end of each landing pad) touches the surface.
To understand why there is no crater one has to understand that the material in which a crater may have formed is missing. Lets say the moon cooled down from a glowing state after creation. you don't have ANY dust. The fact that there is SOME dust is because debris slammed into the surface, but such dust is unmodified by erosion and not in ammounts like in an earth's desert. So into WHAT material do you expect do have a crater in ? Solid rock ?
Knowing how 'sticky' this dust is (remember i said no erosion) it behaves like glue. Can you handle this ?
how would you expect a decent engine works on a glue-like surface ?
Such a surface does not exist on earth, and the 'Rocketdyne-Expert' can truly give his opnion about how this engine works on earth, but on THAT stuff ?
I'm afraid it needs a totally different understanding of the surface processes to figure why there is no crater.
important however is .. don't compare it with earth
Why are Armstrong's statements damning? They're quite congruent with photos consistently showing no giant crater, but a modest amount of fluid erosion.
Bill the publisher never saw a 2,600 lbs. thrust engine with a widened bell landing in an airless env. Why would dust cloud in an airless environment when every particle falls at the same rate? Armstrong ANNOUNCED "engine stop" after the fact--he can't say everything all at once.
JW, if you hand-pick errant experts, you'll win every time.
This might be one of the reasons why there are no more moon landings, bcs they would have to come up with another story why there would be an crater under the lander and in the past not.
Oh christ just google moon hoax theories there's no reason to expect a crater it's explained completely even your typical moontard can understand it but they refuse because they are so unhinged.
Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.
@CaptainThought If that is the case why does astronaut James Cernan state they needed to shut down their engines before touching the surface to avoid sinking into their own crater? (Which didn't happen according to the actual footage of the landing).
None of you seem to have a basic grasp of science. A rocket engine does NOT hold a spacecraft up on a cushion of gasses, it works on the action reaction process. What this means is the thrust energy is somewhat equal to the mass of the gasses(which is very low) times the square of their velocity (which is EXTREMELY high in a rocket engine. The conclusion is that a distinct depression would exist where the spacecraft traversed the surface very near to it and landed.
7:12 Gene Cenan YOU ARE A LYIN FUCK. U shut down the engines NINE FEET BEFORE U TOUCHED DOWN? YOU LYING SCUMBAG FUCK. Look at this pricks face-you can clearly see a half-a-dozen classic Lying signs in less than 10 seconds.
He can't keep his eyes open & WHEN he does-he can't look in the eyes of the person he talking to & he clearly has to remember "his lines." again. Disgusting pitiful lying bastard. It's so obvious he's lying it's disgusting.
It is sad that when I grew up I was honoring NASA and the dreams that they instilled... which now turn out to be scams of disinfo created by the DOD... They should be ashamed of what they have done.
Here's the irony over all this bullshit. Not only did we fake out the Russians that we actually landed on the moon, we faked out our own people too! Genius!
This gave us a huge advantage to what the USA is today.
Sneaky? Absolutely. Productive? You bet your sweet ass!
The fact that there is no trace of a real landing proofs that the footage or photo's is/are fake. It does not proof they did not go there, It proofs that they did not want us to see the results of their visit. By the way, if you carelfully watch the interview of the astronauts after returnin g form their trip, just read their faces.
I think that one can sense, from this video, that many people have a hard time not thinking of the Terrestrial enviroment when speaking of the Moon. There is no atmosphere.. If one could be in open moon enviroment and have a pile of moon dust in his palm, he couldn't manage to blow it out of his hand with air from his lungs. You do realize that, don't you? It seems as if that concept has escaped your realization, TOTALLY. What a twit.
Good point - I never thought of that:- no air = no wind = no displacement...you could blast the surface with 1000 jet engines and not one granual of dust would be dispersed - its amazing how a lack of basic physics makes these whack jobs look like twits!
@TREACLE97 You seem to miss a basic difference between a jet engine and a rocket engine. Jets drive the ambient air while rocket motors use the air and fuel stored onboard. I'm amused by your comment "its amazing how a lack of basic physics makes these whack jobs look like twits!" Real laws of physics give credence to their theory.
@kd5gua Your so-called "concept" is badly flawed. Following your logic, spacecraft such as the space shuttle could not maneuvre anywhere there is not an atmosphere. I think you need to take a step back and reconsider things before labelling others as twits :)
@nzdnapalm, nope, wrong. Now I may want to back on on calling people twits, just to be nicer, but, I am not wrong on what I said. Spacecraft is propelled in a vacuum because for ever action there is an opposite and equal reaction. What I was referring to is that without atmosphere, that release of gas or rocket output has a very small range of effect because there is no air to get going to move the dust. Output from the rocket disperses almost immediately and does not cause an air current.
This is a humourous group of videos. Thank you for the entertainment. Wouldn't that be wild if so many people really could keep a secret? You have more faith in humans that anyone I have ever heard of. Most people think, and are correct, that the average person, likely can't keep a secret for very long. Wow, NASA could really choose it's people well, roflmao. this is such a crock of shit. There is no need to nit pick on your mistakes, as the whole concept is lunacy, pardon the pun.
This guy is so full of shit, saying he has seen many firings of engines with such thrust, cause he has never seen an engine or rocket fire in a vacuum. Totally discredits his comment and shows ignorance that he didn't know the fault when he made comments.
If I could I would bet everything I own that we never landed on the moon. We wont go back because we never went. Imagine in the 70's with computer tech at that stage. ridiculous
On all 6 landing sites? In all the videos, the astronauts easily kick up debris, like when walking in sand on Earth, yet these powerful engines didn't kick up huge clouds that would linger even longer than dust hangs in the air here? Very curious.
look at all that dust, foot-prints seem to make indentations...yet the craft looks as though it's been placed there, i suppose if this was a fake picture... and i bet my left nut that it is then these fakers could not exactly turn the craft engine on and let is dangle there for a while to create the crater effect, what an oversight... must have been solid rock they landed on right? but just 2 feet away...dust, footprints...the pads even...not a dent, shameful
@gregrutz sorry mate, you got petrified wood instead...check the news, if it wasn't for that prime minster of Holland or what ever dying then we wouldn't have known...perhaps for years to come, it's a con, if it was real we wouldn't have this argument, Nixon, Vietnam, building 7, illegal wars Guantanamo bay, no WMDs all kinds of bullshit to enthrall the lotus eaters of this world...massive propaganda exercise, thats all it was, anyways enjoy your moon rocks
@gregrutz of course not... if i were the Russians considering the USSRs economic pressures (which ultimately caused its downfall years later) i would have made a deal...what happened in 1972? between the Russians and the US... no more moon missions to.. sound reasonable to you? but please tell us why then would these astronots on a world tour after the Apollo missions tour the world giving out fake moon rocks? any clues there perhaps?
@gregrutz, yes very clever these rocket engineers, Saturn V was amazing, but not all of the rocket went all of the way there and of course once in space if they faked the landing then the LEM must of been dumped in space, it's possible, they fly around for a few days, come back in the capsule and no-ones any the wiser, wasn't there a satellite launched prior to these missions which simulated the data they would receive back on earth? i have my doubts, hope you don't mind.
@gregrutz indeed, why make programs like myth-busters, why the back-lash against so called "conspiracy theorists"? if this was in the realm of crack-pottery without any substance then why bother entertaining such ideas? were all very lucky indeed to have people like JW around to start such challenges, he wasn't the first i know... were not all a nation of apathetic docile lotus eaters and they know this, the cracks in the story are evident, so we continue to strive for answers.
@gregrutz well it took 40+ years to find out about that lump of petrified wood proffered as 'real' by those who went to the moon and back... truth has no time limit.
@gregrutz i mean to say the truth what ever that may be will always remain the same regardless of spin, distortions and out & out lies about the subject... the Dutch prime minister for example who had that 'moon rock' believed it was real, as did many of us, but was proved to be fake 40+ years later... theres only one truth to any situation, thats if you can scrape the bullshit of the truth.
yeah the russians love us, who brainwash you to believe this the media, the russians did say it was a hoax but it was never aired in america tv, now go back to your tv and keep educating urself with all that crap they throw at you.
they can't put people inside cause there is deadly radiation around earth and on the moon that has no atmosphere to protect it, nasa still doesn't know how much radiation is on the moon, how you send people to the moon without knowing the dangers, that's why the russians didn't go to the moon.
During the link up with the Russians, they were in the highest orbit the could reach and we were at our lowest orbit, and we carried all the fuel to dock. The russians didn't go to the moon because they couldn't. Try again.
Those vehicles land on runways, which are designed to be hardy against jet blast. Try landing them on grass or sand and see how long the terrain will last then.
They don't have to land on runways. Harriers can also land on grass
please google "why is there no blast crater moon" and click the third link (youtube doesn't allow links for some reason..). Calculations also show the engine doesn't create that much pressure.
A girl with high heels creates more pressure than an eliphant. This calculation works the same way
First of all, 1.5psi is three times the pressure of a leafblower and they blast away any loose dust in its path. The LM couldn't even blow away loose peddles directly under the engine bell.
Second, von Braun himself clearly said that 0.14psi would dig a crater beneath his proposed moonship.
"Jarrah White would like to invite you to see the Apollo 11 footage that Svector, Phantom Wolf and Shane Killian have tried to suppress from public view"
Hahaha, Shane has tried to suppress footage from public view? You're a retard :D
"Hahaha, Shane has tried to suppress footage from public view? You're a retard :D"
He refused to reveal or even acknowledge the fact that the clip he used came from an edited source. He just prefers to blindly apply the events of a CUT-AWAY shot in which no astronauts appear, to all other telecasts from Apollo 11 which were clearly filmed differently.
He, like Liar Vector and PhantomWolf, cherry-picks a clip showing the 'earth' vanishing behind the window. He never reveals that its a CUT AWAY shot in which no astronauts appear.
Why do you suppose he chooses not to give that info?
"Because it is a retarded argument you're giving?"
Hardly. His hero, Liar Vector, claimed it was a continuous video with no edits. He refused multiple requests to upload the whole telecast. You'd think they'd do that in a heartbeat if it was so devastating to the moon hoax theory.
"Why is it a problem that no astronauts appear in the shot?"
No astronauts seen floating around and you can't prove it was even filmed in zero gravity, and we already know that it's a cut away shot.
Why would he waste his time with that? Everybody knows the idea that the moonlanding was fake is bullshit, why would he waste his time uploading a video you claim contains evidence for your idea's? Upload it yourself, or even better, write a paper on it and send it to a peer-reviewed journal
If they weren't in zero gravity, wouldn't you think the russians would have noticed it?
gerry andersons thunderbirds are more realistic than the apollogist fake moon landings nasa should have given hin a few mill to do the blast craters .
The fact that there is no crater is pretty good evidence that the landings are real.
ALL of the artist conceptions in the mid-1960's (yes, I was there) had craters. There is NO WAY they would have missed that fact if they were going to "fake" the thing.
I just realized that Project Sandbox debunks this video. In sandbox, you claim that NASA used sand for the EVA scenes and the lunar touchdown. When you run a hairdryer to it, the sand makes a crater. So if they were running a large blower on the sand on the moonset -- to get emanating rays -- why is there no crater in the EVA scenes and photos? The fact that there is no crater proves it was shot on regolith in a vacuum.
unparallelshadows 6 days ago
@unparallelshadows The 16mm reels and EVA footage could very likely have been filmed on different sets. The 16mm was also supposed to have filmed some views of the moon from orbit. They could have used miniatures to film the touchdown scenes and a full scale set for the EVA scenes.
That's how a lot of FX artists do it. The ED-209 scenes in Robocop for example used both full scale and miniature models.
WhiteJarrah 6 days ago
my fire crackers leave a blast crater they wiegh about 200 grams
haydenmossop 2 weeks ago
@TheDeJureTure, JW has a million ideas--theories to back up his theories. He needs to explain how acres & acres of sand which always appears finer than sand in photos creates neat boot prints, but doesn't leave astronauts mud covered. Why land a LM with no one in it? What's the point? So it would be found by the LRO 40 years later? I don't believe theories. I believe the mountains of evidence provided by 9 trips to the moon & which holds up to all scientific scrutiny.
LunarTuner 3 weeks ago
And anyway, When you're parking, do you go in at full speed?
No you don't. At the end the thrust wasn't even enough to over come the moon's feeble gravity.
11cookeaw1 1 month ago
Jarrah: One problem, is that you assume that the engine was operating at full thrust when in the reduced gravity of the moon, that would have ejected the Lunar lander back into space, or, as Cernan points out: they would have been IN the crater, had they not SHUT THE ENGINE DOWN before touch-down, or the BACK-PRESSURE MIGHT HAVE DESTROYED THE ENGINE! The second thing, is that the engines were power adjustable. That means that they could have adjusted the thrust output as they descended.
MrSkunkwork100 2 months ago
Why would a LM with a landing weight of 2600-3000 lbs. leave a crater when a V-22 Osprey weighting 45,000 lbs. would not?
watch?v=IVoksf_2y5k
(Oh, and note the dust cloud that lasts quite a while when something is launched or landed on earth. You don't see that in ANY Apollo video)
LunarTuner 2 months ago
@LunarTuner I'll agree with you about the dust on Earth vs. the Moon, but I think that Jarrah has argued in other videos that sand was used, not dust.
There is a "Third Position" on this whole Moon hoax thing: the landers landed, but no men were aboard. That would explain a lot of things I think.
the V-22 is on rocks, then over a paved road. I'm not seeing a fair compare there. Besides, those props aren't directed like a rocket engine is, are they?
TheDeJureTour 3 weeks ago
Perhaps because he, like the other astro's who specifically commented on the lack of a crater, still expected a crater,like Kaysing.
snakehipsohoolihan 2 months ago
So there wasn't a crater (even though, despite Kaysing's claims, every physicist and engineer competent on the issue will tell you there shouldn't be one in any case), Armstrong noted that on record, and you think you have a 'smoking gun'? So the conspirators didn't think of 'faking' a crater? And Armstrong saw fit to point this out because, what, he had a moment of guilty conscience? Or a lapse in judgement? Perhaps it's in the script? Amazing display of self-deluding intellectual acrobatics.
ianman6 2 months ago
moon landing = dumb americans, LOL
yourmajezty 5 months ago
Even today the Russians and the Americans have not got the technology to land a craft on any planet using reverse thrust so how did they land 40 years ago. The Americans developed the shuttle to land as a plane, on wings. If the Russians want to bring men back it has to be done the same as the Americans and the Russians done 40 years ago, with the aid of parachutes and landing in the sea.If anyone wants proof of a hoax I can get you to prove it to yourself.
expattaffy1 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@expattaffy1
(w)(w)(w).telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8746306/Nasa-releases-new-high-definition-images-of-Apollo-moon-landings.html
TheFireForEffect 5 months ago
@expattaffy1 No, the Russians landed unmanned robotic probes. A FAR easier and do-able task to accomplish using 1970's technology. If you drop sensor beacons (and they did this also with retro reflectors) on the moon before sending the robotic probes it would have been do-able with 1970's technology. You're also not asking the impossible which is to take off from the moon, which does have 1/6 Earth gravity by the way, without rocket fuel to accomplish orbital velocity.
technatezin 5 months ago in playlist moon landings
no crater, no stars, magic bullet, no aircraft wreckage, no plausible answers...
SilverShamrock71 6 months ago
@SilverShamrock71 I smell a rat...
SilverShamrock71 6 months ago
Jarrah, wouldn't the blast also have melted that copper foil? It's wrapped all around everything, even the legs. I saw it in the Smithsonian in the Air and Space Museum and questioned the guards there about how thin it was, and how the walls were made of it and wouldn't have held people without them breaking through the walls. They just laughed and said "yeah, it seems thin, but they wouldn't have been in there very long."
beastshawnee 6 months ago
To be honest, don't you think NASA would know whether there should have been a blast crater or not? Why not dig a fake one?
yesiamawizardjonny 7 months ago
They turned off the engines right before landing, and the reason there is no dust on the footpads is because it was blown away great distances since there was no air resistance.
There are your answers, so now you can stop bitching about this.
Laurelindo 7 months ago 2
@Laurelindo Just a quick correction, bud. Neil didn't hear Buzz when he said, "Contact Light" and so the engine was not cut until all the footpads were already secure on the ground. From the Apollo lunar surface Journal. Either way, just a little friendly correction for you.
yesiamawizardjonny 7 months ago
What about the reflectors placed on the moon, which can still be used today
using lasers ? or is that fake too...
OdinMovies 7 months ago
I stopped listening when he said that 70dB is half the noise level of a jet engine. If you don't know the difference between a logarithmic and linear scale, I cannot take you serious: + 3dB is twice the noise power. I think you graduating a basic physics class is a hoax too.
Mclighter 7 months ago
lol if you dont belive the moonlanding you are so dumb, doing a moonlanding was easyer than changing an eye ball and we can change aye balls
VideoVerifying 7 months ago
God I hate Govt. Trolls. They are lying scum.
1melahat 10 months ago
113:01:58 Schmitt: Contact
113:02:03 Schmitt: (Reading a checklist) Stop, push. Engine stop
102:45:40 Aldrin: Contact Light
102:45:44 Aldrin: Okay. Engine Stop
Spot the difference.
timpovikings 10 months ago
Mate, you're aguing an engine has a thrust potential which must create a crater. You're using Cernan's account to bolster this. You thus accept that a descent was made (somewhere) with an early cut-off to prevent a crater.
A key part of the fakery would have been a blast crater. But the reality is the landings are identical and all look at the area below the bell in each case.
You're adept at video handling, but a spoken account is used instead of 17's landing footage?
Please!
timpovikings 10 months ago
Just when you're ready, Jarrah...
What was Armstrong landing on when he kept his engine running?
"However, this was not how Neil Armstrong landed his spacecraft on Apollo 11. Instead, as revealed in the official NASA footage, the Eagle's descent engine was still running when the footpads touched the surface. And it remained running for a good five seconds afterwards."
timpovikings 10 months ago 8
@timpovikings Do you really need me to specify that I do not believe Apollo was real whenever I paraphrase the official NASA story?
WhiteJarrah 10 months ago 7
@WhiteJarrah
You're also a liar.
Apollo 17's landing film is more or less identical to 11's, mate. Including 'ENGINE STOP',
You're accepting a descent engine was running in both landings. So where abouts was that landing taking place?
timpovikings 10 months ago
@WhiteJarrah
No, mate. I need you to specify how it is a landing that never took place, has identical landing details on two missions you say were different. You argue the descent engine had a specific thrust potential, not reflected in physical evidence beneath the bell.
It might also help your ridiculous case if you could explain why this is such a revealing omission, when NASA made it a point of both spoken and photographed evidence gathering of exactly this detail?
timpovikings 10 months ago
@WhiteJarrah
Anytime you like, mate.
Tell us how the filmed landing sequences of 11 and 17 differ?
Whoops.
timpovikings 10 months ago
@WhiteJarrah
You're actually using the physical proof of an engine's capability and the difference between two landings, to disprove the fact an engine was ever used, in landings that never took place! Oddly enough, the landing sequences are identical.
Your obsession is now making you look ridiculous, mate.
timpovikings 10 months ago
@WhiteJarrah
Your problem is, Jarrah, you've trashed everything, but using NASA material as your measure. When you want to trash footage you compare footage to logs, using the logs as factual. When you want to trash craters, you compare spoken word to footage, treating the footage as your benchmark, when you want to trash logs, you compare it with spoken word.
What a mess you're in, mate.
Are you seriously suggesting all those people have lied for more than four decades? LMFAO!
timpovikings 10 months ago 7
@timpovikings yes, ALL of those people have lied for more than four decades! dont four decades go by in a blink though!?
u think u cant scare people into submission? 9/11 was a scare method, and it has worked well on most of the worlds population for 1 decade!
its not hard... its simple actually when u are dealing with frightened humans.
CT2507 9 months ago
@CT2507
Thanks, mate.
Always good to hear from the experts.
LMFAO!
timpovikings 9 months ago
@timpovikings your welcome mate ... glad i could fill your hole for u!:)
let me tell u something about that arse of u'rs u like so much to laugh off! a funny little story i heard from Russia:
"The higher the monkey climbs, the more it shows its arse!"
...u like it? its for u friendo! :)
cheers mate ! :))
CT2507 9 months ago
@CT2507
Good post, mate.
Did your mother have any children that lived?
timpovikings 9 months ago
@timpovikings yea, she did. ME!:)
why do u ask... didn't yours??
cheers mate! :))
CT2507 9 months ago
@CT2507
Look pal, I was a test-tube baby. I don't have a mother and my birth sign is Pyrex.
A whole administration couldn't keep a cigar and a semen stain secret, but you think a government sat on Apollo for decades! ROFLMFAO!
You don't have big red shoes and an orange wig, do you?
timpovikings 9 months ago
@timpovikings dont use the test tube excuse for having made bad decisions in life. be glad u are here. and start making the good decisions.
its not the entire government. its only a handful of people who need to know. the others are gullible like u anyway and will believe and think what they are told to believe and think. and on top of that, they are scared... scared to loose a life and a career that has taken them decades to achieve. so they don't ask the wrong questions. they stay in line
CT2507 9 months ago
@CT2507
Mate, you're awesome. And so boring.
Even your Dad wishes he'd gone for the handjob or your Mother had swallowed you.
Some other time....
timpovikings 9 months ago
@timpovikings u talk the talk of the big dicks, but i suspect yours is really tiny. am i right? usually test tubes don't grow to man size, or at least that's what i heard.
any comment on that?
CT2507 9 months ago
@WhiteJarrah And he got 9 thumbs up for that stupid comment too.
Aeronauticalexplorer 2 months ago
Come in at any time Jarrah.
What was Arsmstrong landing on when he kept his engine running?
timpovikings 10 months ago
When you're life's shit and no-one takes you seriously, you hate getting up to go to a crap job and you just wanted to be born Paul McCartney, when you don't have the balls to buy the stroke mags and your girlfriend won't say the magic words at just the right time, when you believe the kid next door who says he can prove they have an alien at Area 51 and when you just know Kennedy was shot from the stormdrain under the sidewalk, make your pointless life even more complete....
Deny Apollo.
timpovikings 10 months ago
The problem folks have admitting to the rocket thrust spread out is it inpart ruins another part of their hoax theory. Then they cherry pick data to attempt to prove absurd and really nutter ideas....in any event the moon landings by NASA were real as advertised.
starview1 10 months ago
Way to go, Jarrah.
They faked the landing on the lunar surface, there was no crater.....but Armstrong kept the engine running as he set down.
You're terrifying, son. You should be under guard.
timpovikings 10 months ago
There was no blast crater.
That would explain why they photographed the area below the bell.
Moon hoaxers: proof vegetables can communicate with eachother.
timpovikings 10 months ago
You honestly think that NASA, if they hoaxed it, wouldn't have taken the time to make a crater and put some dust on the pads? That they would have overlooked that simple concept (if it were true) in an amazingly complex and expensive scheme? All I can do is laugh. At you.
maulcs 10 months ago
Comment removed
Pecetos 11 months ago
Why don't you conspiracy freaks make a vacuum chamber test with volcanic ash here on Earth?
dinoalberini 1 year ago
@dinoalberini maybe they should just sit inside the vacuum chamber,although it is likely that is what is inside their collective heads lol
starview1 1 year ago
Right. And the stupid Soviets were fooled too. With unmanned orbiters following the fake fake Apollo mission.
dinoalberini 1 year ago
NoReal Blast Crater because apollo engine nozzel is 2300sq inches and at landing generated only 1.5poundsper sq inch plus in vacuum exhaust spreads out,long flames occur in our atmosphere not in vacuum. Full thrust is not used at landing that only happens in scifi movies. Rocket engine used had throttle.Moon landings were real as advertised.
starview1 1 year ago 11
@starview1 Don't bother. They believe what they want.
dinoalberini 1 year ago
@starview1 Spread out? it never got a chance to spread out since the nozzle was only a few inches above the surface after touchdown and the engine was shutdown AFTER touchdown. So how would it spread out? And watch NASA original footage itself which also debunks the "spread out" claim, because during landing when LM is 100ft above surface the engine is still powerful enough to kicking up dust right underneath it - and thats 3000 lbs of thrust.
xismxist 10 months ago
@xismxist You may have missed the fact that the engine throttles down, and while blowing the moon dust (powder)around, it doesnot make the classic hollywood crater,and further the flame or thrust does speadout in the near vacuum of the moon. The throttling feature of the LM engine was quite unique.
starview1 10 months ago
@starview1 OMG are you slow?! must i give an explanation after EACH WORD?! 3000 lbs IS when throttled down, that IS the thrust which was used when landing, read again - read right. I didnt miss anything, you on the other hand needs to understand what you are reading.
xismxist 10 months ago
@starview1 So i will ask again, how and when was the thrust spread out?
xismxist 10 months ago
@xismxist On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! That event is revealed as the US Flag is moved by the expanded thrust. I can send you the data graphs that reveals the 4 to 5ft per second landing event at impact of LM on Moon
starview1 10 months ago
@starview1 Your a total joke! now when i proved you wrong you start talking about other, irrelevant things. I dont care how long the flame is. Why did you avoid my questions? there's no way the exhaust was spread out after touchdown with the nozzle only a few inches from the surface, the impact on the surface should had been obvious.
xismxist 10 months ago
@xismxist ignoring the physics of the flame in a vacuum is infact ignoring the explaination, sadly you don't seem to understand the difference between a flame in atmosphere and a flame in vacuum. Further in the last feet of the landing the LEM was at a rate of aprox 4 and 1/2 feet per sec with engine down to less than the 3000lb Throttled down, to where the LEM struts would absorb the slight impact,not unlike landing gear on aircraft. Throttled down means the engine grad goes to zero thrust.
starview1 10 months ago
@starview1 You can make up as many excuses as you want, NASA original footage still shows the touchdown while the engine still running(at 3000 lbs thrust) and it was cut AFTER touchdown, but im glad even YOU finaly realized that the still photos doesnt match the video. For last time, there's no posibility for the exhaust to spread out after touchdown, and Cernan said the back pressure would had cause an explosion but it didnt
xismxist 10 months ago
@xismxist NASA was quite aware of the chance that serious damage could occur from an uncontrolled thrust,but of course in LEM landing and take off videos one clearly sees the spread out effect of the variable thruster, in one vid you can see the effect on a near by American Flag. Further proof of the spreading effect.
starview1 10 months ago
@starview1 Effect on a NEAR BY flag is a example of SPREAD OUT? omg are you for real?
xismxist 10 months ago
@xismxist So I will tell you again, (when the engine is fired)the thrust is spread out the entire time a vehicle is in space. Why you have a problem with simple physics 101 is I'm sure in part why some folks have a hard time understanding the reality of the NASA moon landings,which of course are recognized as a reality by all serious science around the world. Certainly the benifits of science that NASA and its works have provided to the world for decades.
starview1 10 months ago
@starview1 So then why does Gene Cernana say that you are wrong and that he turned off the engine 3meters above the moon other wise it would have dug a huge crater?
Aeronauticalexplorer 2 months ago
If I where to decieve a whole world with a fake moonlanding, I would not forget to digg a crater for the lunar module to mark the landing spot. And I would deff. not talk about how small the crater appear to be if that where the case of lacy diggers.
tep200377 1 year ago
Jarrah,
I just recently came across your videos. Amazing stuff, man. Utterly amazing.
TommyReno 1 year ago
ok there is footprints all around apollo 11 lander so soft dust no crater nuff said, wake up you stupid wrestling lovin' fools!
MorpheusWasRight 1 year ago
NASA and the fake astronots are a bunch of losers. So are rednecks who believe NASA landed men on the moon.
forestinfullbloom 1 year ago
@forestinfullbloom It is comments like these that makes you loose the whole debate.
tep200377 1 year ago
you begin by saying the 70 Db argument is the most rediciouls you ever heard, as you say its half of a jet engine and thats true, as they are in the range of 140 Db. so it may suprice you that the human voice in normal conversation is at 50-60 Db. A raised voice is at around 70Db, shouting at about 85 Db, and so DB does not scale like you obviously think it does. But i supose its easy enough to missunderstand.
ecidemon1 1 year ago
Jarrah-
It seems like you are distorting the facts. Nothing you showed between 7:40-8:00 proves that Armstrong kept running the engine 5 seconds after landing. Your reference point, the contact light, probably comes on earlier prompting the Astronauts to cut off the engine. My estimation is that the contact light comes on as soon as the 5.6 foot long "Lunar-surface sensing module" (stick-like features at the end of each landing pad) touches the surface.
YTubeMoralAction 1 year ago
To understand why there is no crater one has to understand that the material in which a crater may have formed is missing. Lets say the moon cooled down from a glowing state after creation. you don't have ANY dust. The fact that there is SOME dust is because debris slammed into the surface, but such dust is unmodified by erosion and not in ammounts like in an earth's desert. So into WHAT material do you expect do have a crater in ? Solid rock ?
tamaramj 1 year ago
Knowing how 'sticky' this dust is (remember i said no erosion) it behaves like glue. Can you handle this ?
how would you expect a decent engine works on a glue-like surface ?
Such a surface does not exist on earth, and the 'Rocketdyne-Expert' can truly give his opnion about how this engine works on earth, but on THAT stuff ?
I'm afraid it needs a totally different understanding of the surface processes to figure why there is no crater.
important however is .. don't compare it with earth
tamaramj 1 year ago
NASA -LIE AND FAKE THEIR MOON PROGRAM
NASA - MOST MAJOR falsifier
vlad9vt 1 year ago
Why are Armstrong's statements damning? They're quite congruent with photos consistently showing no giant crater, but a modest amount of fluid erosion.
Bill the publisher never saw a 2,600 lbs. thrust engine with a widened bell landing in an airless env. Why would dust cloud in an airless environment when every particle falls at the same rate? Armstrong ANNOUNCED "engine stop" after the fact--he can't say everything all at once.
JW, if you hand-pick errant experts, you'll win every time.
LunarTuner 1 year ago
@LunarTuner True
theskunkmeister 1 year ago
This might be one of the reasons why there are no more moon landings, bcs they would have to come up with another story why there would be an crater under the lander and in the past not.
Wulfher13 1 year ago
@Wulfher13
Oh christ just google moon hoax theories there's no reason to expect a crater it's explained completely even your typical moontard can understand it but they refuse because they are so unhinged.
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.
CaptainThought 1 year ago
@CaptainThought
Never heard such nnonsense
Luiwerwimmes 1 year ago
@CaptainThought If that is the case why does astronaut James Cernan state they needed to shut down their engines before touching the surface to avoid sinking into their own crater? (Which didn't happen according to the actual footage of the landing).
SUPwityoo 1 year ago
@SUPwityoo No one such person as JAMES Cernan. There's a Eugene Cernan, but you said JAMES so you must not know what your talking about.
theslug1022 1 year ago
@CaptainThought True
theskunkmeister 1 year ago
None of you seem to have a basic grasp of science. A rocket engine does NOT hold a spacecraft up on a cushion of gasses, it works on the action reaction process. What this means is the thrust energy is somewhat equal to the mass of the gasses(which is very low) times the square of their velocity (which is EXTREMELY high in a rocket engine. The conclusion is that a distinct depression would exist where the spacecraft traversed the surface very near to it and landed.
MrConspiracyRealist 1 year ago
7:12 Gene Cenan YOU ARE A LYIN FUCK. U shut down the engines NINE FEET BEFORE U TOUCHED DOWN? YOU LYING SCUMBAG FUCK. Look at this pricks face-you can clearly see a half-a-dozen classic Lying signs in less than 10 seconds.
He can't keep his eyes open & WHEN he does-he can't look in the eyes of the person he talking to & he clearly has to remember "his lines." again. Disgusting pitiful lying bastard. It's so obvious he's lying it's disgusting.
ed11561 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ed11561 do you think man landed on the moon?
usucksuckers 1 year ago
@ed11561 I'm sure you've looked Gene Cernan in the eye and said these things to him, right?
theslug1022 1 year ago
It is sad that when I grew up I was honoring NASA and the dreams that they instilled... which now turn out to be scams of disinfo created by the DOD... They should be ashamed of what they have done.
RClark886988 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RClark886988 You were the one who lost his way.
Synthetrix 1 year ago
@RClark886988
You should be ashamed for believing this, any kid could pick apart hoax theories and see them for the crap they are. Are you challenged?
TheJomogogo 1 year ago
The low gravity on the moon means the compaction of the surface is much different to the earths so no comparison can be made - evidence FAIL!
TREACLE97 1 year ago
Here's the irony over all this bullshit. Not only did we fake out the Russians that we actually landed on the moon, we faked out our own people too! Genius!
This gave us a huge advantage to what the USA is today.
Sneaky? Absolutely. Productive? You bet your sweet ass!
lungloogie 1 year ago
The fact that there is no trace of a real landing proofs that the footage or photo's is/are fake. It does not proof they did not go there, It proofs that they did not want us to see the results of their visit. By the way, if you carelfully watch the interview of the astronauts after returnin g form their trip, just read their faces.
pedropicasso41 1 year ago
I think that one can sense, from this video, that many people have a hard time not thinking of the Terrestrial enviroment when speaking of the Moon. There is no atmosphere.. If one could be in open moon enviroment and have a pile of moon dust in his palm, he couldn't manage to blow it out of his hand with air from his lungs. You do realize that, don't you? It seems as if that concept has escaped your realization, TOTALLY. What a twit.
kd5gua 1 year ago
Good point - I never thought of that:- no air = no wind = no displacement...you could blast the surface with 1000 jet engines and not one granual of dust would be dispersed - its amazing how a lack of basic physics makes these whack jobs look like twits!
TREACLE97 1 year ago
@TREACLE97 You seem to miss a basic difference between a jet engine and a rocket engine. Jets drive the ambient air while rocket motors use the air and fuel stored onboard. I'm amused by your comment "its amazing how a lack of basic physics makes these whack jobs look like twits!" Real laws of physics give credence to their theory.
nzdnapalm 1 year ago
@kd5gua Your so-called "concept" is badly flawed. Following your logic, spacecraft such as the space shuttle could not maneuvre anywhere there is not an atmosphere. I think you need to take a step back and reconsider things before labelling others as twits :)
nzdnapalm 1 year ago
@nzdnapalm, nope, wrong. Now I may want to back on on calling people twits, just to be nicer, but, I am not wrong on what I said. Spacecraft is propelled in a vacuum because for ever action there is an opposite and equal reaction. What I was referring to is that without atmosphere, that release of gas or rocket output has a very small range of effect because there is no air to get going to move the dust. Output from the rocket disperses almost immediately and does not cause an air current.
kd5gua 1 year ago
This is a humourous group of videos. Thank you for the entertainment. Wouldn't that be wild if so many people really could keep a secret? You have more faith in humans that anyone I have ever heard of. Most people think, and are correct, that the average person, likely can't keep a secret for very long. Wow, NASA could really choose it's people well, roflmao. this is such a crock of shit. There is no need to nit pick on your mistakes, as the whole concept is lunacy, pardon the pun.
kd5gua 1 year ago
This guy is so full of shit, saying he has seen many firings of engines with such thrust, cause he has never seen an engine or rocket fire in a vacuum. Totally discredits his comment and shows ignorance that he didn't know the fault when he made comments.
kd5gua 1 year ago
Great video! USA debunked 4 ever!
22700p 1 year ago
If I could I would bet everything I own that we never landed on the moon. We wont go back because we never went. Imagine in the 70's with computer tech at that stage. ridiculous
Igentenos 1 year ago
You speak much, but say little.
obankobi 1 year ago
trolls thumb this video down/
colloredbrothers 1 year ago
nice video. i'm convinced there was no moon landing and the whole thing's staged.
mathewjohn5174 1 year ago
WhiteJarrah you look blazed in your videos...5*
MujaRagHeadKillaUK 1 year ago
great job WhiteJarrah
cuplex 1 year ago
Was there supposed to be one? why?
Maybe bedrock was shallow.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz
On all 6 landing sites? In all the videos, the astronauts easily kick up debris, like when walking in sand on Earth, yet these powerful engines didn't kick up huge clouds that would linger even longer than dust hangs in the air here? Very curious.
lmposter 2 years ago
Not a lot of air to hang in.
gregrutz 2 years ago
look at all that dust, foot-prints seem to make indentations...yet the craft looks as though it's been placed there, i suppose if this was a fake picture... and i bet my left nut that it is then these fakers could not exactly turn the craft engine on and let is dangle there for a while to create the crater effect, what an oversight... must have been solid rock they landed on right? but just 2 feet away...dust, footprints...the pads even...not a dent, shameful
b4gm4n 2 years ago
man, i cant believe this..
moonrockets where send to several labs in the world...if i would hide a secret i wouldnt be so stupid to send so many fake rockets to scientists
or would u?? or the russians also got moonrockets from their own mission
Serpico261 2 years ago
We have moon rocks !!!!
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz sorry mate, you got petrified wood instead...check the news, if it wasn't for that prime minster of Holland or what ever dying then we wouldn't have known...perhaps for years to come, it's a con, if it was real we wouldn't have this argument, Nixon, Vietnam, building 7, illegal wars Guantanamo bay, no WMDs all kinds of bullshit to enthrall the lotus eaters of this world...massive propaganda exercise, thats all it was, anyways enjoy your moon rocks
b4gm4n 2 years ago
They are not that smart.
Do you think the Russians would have let up get away with it. Not.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz of course not... if i were the Russians considering the USSRs economic pressures (which ultimately caused its downfall years later) i would have made a deal...what happened in 1972? between the Russians and the US... no more moon missions to.. sound reasonable to you? but please tell us why then would these astronots on a world tour after the Apollo missions tour the world giving out fake moon rocks? any clues there perhaps?
b4gm4n 2 years ago
There is a mirron they placed on the moon that they use to lazer range.
How would they fake a Satern 5 launch? We had to make it, might as well use it.
The astronaughts are pissed you are calling them liars.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz, yes very clever these rocket engineers, Saturn V was amazing, but not all of the rocket went all of the way there and of course once in space if they faked the landing then the LEM must of been dumped in space, it's possible, they fly around for a few days, come back in the capsule and no-ones any the wiser, wasn't there a satellite launched prior to these missions which simulated the data they would receive back on earth? i have my doubts, hope you don't mind.
b4gm4n 2 years ago
Why talk about it, we fooled the world.
SSSSSSSHHHHHHHH !!!
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz indeed, why make programs like myth-busters, why the back-lash against so called "conspiracy theorists"? if this was in the realm of crack-pottery without any substance then why bother entertaining such ideas? were all very lucky indeed to have people like JW around to start such challenges, he wasn't the first i know... were not all a nation of apathetic docile lotus eaters and they know this, the cracks in the story are evident, so we continue to strive for answers.
b4gm4n 2 years ago
THAT WAS 1969, YOU ARE A LITTLE LATE.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz well it took 40+ years to find out about that lump of petrified wood proffered as 'real' by those who went to the moon and back... truth has no time limit.
b4gm4n 2 years ago
I have no idea what you are talking about.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@gregrutz i mean to say the truth what ever that may be will always remain the same regardless of spin, distortions and out & out lies about the subject... the Dutch prime minister for example who had that 'moon rock' believed it was real, as did many of us, but was proved to be fake 40+ years later... theres only one truth to any situation, thats if you can scrape the bullshit of the truth.
b4gm4n 2 years ago
does this really matter...the govt lies about all kinds of shit....its a standard practice...just like people you know lie everyday........
kingrexrex666 2 years ago
How do you fake a moon rock we brought back?
I am sure the Russians would not let us fake anything.
gregrutz 2 years ago
yeah the russians love us, who brainwash you to believe this the media, the russians did say it was a hoax but it was never aired in america tv, now go back to your tv and keep educating urself with all that crap they throw at you.
theagrafiotis 2 years ago
What an idiot ! We went to the moon a long time ago. We can laser range the moon because we left reflectors on the moon. Proof.
gregrutz 2 years ago
did you ever thought that nasa can send machines to the moon without humans inside???
now go back to your teacher media.
theagrafiotis 2 years ago
Seems to me if you are going to send a machine to the moon, you might as well put people in them, why not?
I would like to see you tell Neil he is a lier to his face.
gregrutz 2 years ago
they can't put people inside cause there is deadly radiation around earth and on the moon that has no atmosphere to protect it, nasa still doesn't know how much radiation is on the moon, how you send people to the moon without knowing the dangers, that's why the russians didn't go to the moon.
theagrafiotis 2 years ago
During the link up with the Russians, they were in the highest orbit the could reach and we were at our lowest orbit, and we carried all the fuel to dock. The russians didn't go to the moon because they couldn't. Try again.
gregrutz 2 years ago
they could go to the moon but they would return as mutants.
theagrafiotis 2 years ago
They went to the moon and are still alive.
gregrutz 2 years ago
Ok, a response to your argument about the blast crater. Tests with lander prototypes have shown that the lander doesn't leave a big crater behind.
A harrier jet is much more powerfull than the engine of the lander, but it doesn't make a crater every time it takes off...
Also, most of the dust is blown away by an engine. Well, as you know, there is no air on the moon, so the engine can't produce any wind.
amateurevolutionist 2 years ago
Those vehicles land on runways, which are designed to be hardy against jet blast. Try landing them on grass or sand and see how long the terrain will last then.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
They don't have to land on runways. Harriers can also land on grass
please google "why is there no blast crater moon" and click the third link (youtube doesn't allow links for some reason..). Calculations also show the engine doesn't create that much pressure.
A girl with high heels creates more pressure than an eliphant. This calculation works the same way
amateurevolutionist 2 years ago
That link is full of shit.
First of all, 1.5psi is three times the pressure of a leafblower and they blast away any loose dust in its path. The LM couldn't even blow away loose peddles directly under the engine bell.
Second, von Braun himself clearly said that 0.14psi would dig a crater beneath his proposed moonship.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
I challenge you to point a leafblower directly down, af few meters above some dust, for a few seconds and see how much of a crater you create
For the moment, just ignore the fact that there is no air on the moon...
"Second, von Braun himself clearly said that 0.14psi would dig a crater beneath his proposed moonship. "
Yeah, and Lord Kelvin said havier-than-air flying machines would be impossible...
amateurevolutionist 2 years ago
watch?v=GGh_t_cpEI0
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
wait, are you expecting moonhoaxers to do research and be reasonable?
You really should know better.
amandarandom89 2 years ago
"Jarrah White would like to invite you to see the Apollo 11 footage that Svector, Phantom Wolf and Shane Killian have tried to suppress from public view"
Hahaha, Shane has tried to suppress footage from public view? You're a retard :D
amateurevolutionist 2 years ago
"Hahaha, Shane has tried to suppress footage from public view? You're a retard :D"
He refused to reveal or even acknowledge the fact that the clip he used came from an edited source. He just prefers to blindly apply the events of a CUT-AWAY shot in which no astronauts appear, to all other telecasts from Apollo 11 which were clearly filmed differently.
I call that suppressing information.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
No, suppressing information is making sure it doesn't air. He lets you post any nonsense you want.
amateurevolutionist 2 years ago
Get him to upload the entire 30:28GET telecast and acknowledge that it is an edited reel.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
What's in that clip?
amateurevolutionist 2 years ago
He, like Liar Vector and PhantomWolf, cherry-picks a clip showing the 'earth' vanishing behind the window. He never reveals that its a CUT AWAY shot in which no astronauts appear.
Why do you suppose he chooses not to give that info?
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Because it is a retarded argument you're giving?
Why is it a problem that no astronauts appear in the shot? Maybe some are busy flying the space-ship, or using a camera
amateurevolutionist 2 years ago
"Because it is a retarded argument you're giving?"
Hardly. His hero, Liar Vector, claimed it was a continuous video with no edits. He refused multiple requests to upload the whole telecast. You'd think they'd do that in a heartbeat if it was so devastating to the moon hoax theory.
"Why is it a problem that no astronauts appear in the shot?"
No astronauts seen floating around and you can't prove it was even filmed in zero gravity, and we already know that it's a cut away shot.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Why would he waste his time with that? Everybody knows the idea that the moonlanding was fake is bullshit, why would he waste his time uploading a video you claim contains evidence for your idea's? Upload it yourself, or even better, write a paper on it and send it to a peer-reviewed journal
If they weren't in zero gravity, wouldn't you think the russians would have noticed it?
amateurevolutionist 2 years ago
"Upload it yourself"
I did, after he refused multiple requests to do so.
Why would he refuse when he claimed the video strengthened his case?
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
I don't know, maybe he has a life?
amateurevolutionist 2 years ago
Because he gets paid to work for Nasa, not to refute claims made by some kid recording videos for youtube in his bedroom at his mom's house.
hosaycwervo 1 year ago
@WhiteJarrah
do you believe in alien moon bases.
octoslut 1 year ago
@amateurevolutionist
"why would he wast his time with that?"
why waste your time on jarra white and his nonsense?
mainframe1981 1 year ago
whats the point of working out psi or the speed at which they landed etc etc,since the whole thing was done on earth.
bigfist255 2 years ago
so they landed that shed with only 2psi but a feather falls at the same speed as a hammer and the rover never leaves the ground get real.
bigfist255 2 years ago
Please explain to me what the pressure of the rocket nozzle has to do with whether or not the feather falls at the same speed as a hammer.
And yes -- if you understand simple arithmetic you can compute that the pressure at the mouth of the rocket nozzle upon landing was less than 2psi.
nesokretep 2 years ago
gerry andersons thunderbirds are more realistic than the apollogist fake moon landings nasa should have given hin a few mill to do the blast craters .
bigfist255 2 years ago
Why would an exhaust pressure of only 2 pounds per square inch leave a "blast crater"?
All of the so-called "hoax" evidence is bogus if you just know some actual physics and do some simple arithmetic.
People who promote the "hoax" theory rely on such stupid things as "non parallel shadows" and other inane arguments.
In order to use arguments like that they need to be either horribly ignorant or else they are just plain lying to promote their agenda and sell books.
nesokretep 2 years ago
Apollo 11 did not shut off the engines
Lol Nasa are such dirty liars
Apollo Missions the hoax of the century
humanmonkeyworld 2 years ago
Why would it leave a "crater" in a hard surface?
The fact that there is no crater is pretty good evidence that the landings are real.
ALL of the artist conceptions in the mid-1960's (yes, I was there) had craters. There is NO WAY they would have missed that fact if they were going to "fake" the thing.
nesokretep 2 years ago
Did you not hear a word of what Cernan said shill fuckup?
humanmonkeyworld 2 years ago