It obviously was not faked. 750,000 people were involved in creating the mission, can you imagine the massive lid that would have to be kept on that secret? Someone would have blabbed, it would of come out somehow.
You can claim anything is a conspiracy if you want to believe it enough.
@chippedbeef08 You couldn't, I'll give you that. But you see, not everybody is retarded. There aren't many retards among the rocket scientists or astronauts.: )
Moon hoax believers dont ignore the moon rocks. They say that Werner von Braun went to Antarctica to collect samples from a meteorite. There is a lot of evidence that indicates that man never walked on the moon. No blast crater, weird ligtning and the list goes on and on.
The astronauts were launched with the rocket into earth orbit where they stayed for about 8 days and then descended to earth.
von Braun went scouting for possible training sites. Antarctica has some of the worlds driest spaces, so may have been a viable site, but it was too inconvenient.
Lunites (lunar meteorites) are chemically changed by the trip through the atmosphere, and absorb moisture once they are here. They are different from the rocks apollo brought back as verified in labs all over the world.
The Soviets and the UK tracked the missions all the way there and back again.
No blast crater is due to the very small acceleration due to gravity (which is 9.8m/s^2 on earth). since force = mass x gravity...and accelearation due to gravity on moon is 1.6m/s^2. The reason it did not make a blast crater is the force exerted was too small....please understand some physics first please.
this goes to show that there are still people that still believe in crack-pot theroies , what's next?...the government is kepping tabs on citizens with biological gps systems that are disguised as birthmarks? or little green men are sending mind control rays in power lines?
".the government is kepping tabs on citizens with biological gps systems that are disguised as birthmarks?"
Better than that, The latest one I heard was that the gubmint is spying on us through our digital TV equipment, which is why TV companies are switching the analoguie equipment off.
\o\oh there's another as well. "NASA is _propogating_ the moon hoax theories out there in order to gain funding ZOMG"
Very interesting point of view. Problem: you mention two very different challenges to 'accepted belief'- moon landings and UFO/aliens in the same breath. I agree that evidence is vital to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that a theory is correct. That is a definition of science. What you forget to say is that (for example) large amounts of evidence for lunar expeditions is missing (what a waste- and WHY?); MUCH of the evidence, destroyed. That is why counter-argument uses the bits; no choice!
People tend to be apathetic, simply taking what is fed to them. Conspiracies are real, many are never even theorized. Discerning between the real and unreal involves much skepticism.
9/11 has many conspiracy theories. The government has a conspiracy theory, which has some holes in it as well as facts to support it. We must be skeptical if we are ever to understand what happened. The truth is what really happened, understanding it is the challenge.
dude your reasons why it happened....not very strong evidence. just because a rock has holes in it....LOOK A MOON ROCK there are tons of those where i live. the rocket taking off? unmanned maybe?!
ok I will. still i don't care much about the topic. space exploration does not interest me much. we have enough problems here we need to deal with befor we look beyond them.
Luckily there are people in this world who do not have that attitude, who realise that if we think like that then we will never create anything of beauty or scientific progress because human problems will always exist.
Also, never is scientific endevour useless. We gain from it in many differend fields and ways.
Well said Argus. The government & NASA are not the only source of proof that the world has. Both professional and amateur astronomers around the world tracked the Apollo missions extensively. The independent evidence, from non-governmental observers, that large objects exhibiting exactly the configuration and behavior of the Apollo spacecraft were seen en route to and from the Moon.
Skeptics might say that because there are similarities in the background of some of the footage that they used the same backdrop to hoax there shot. Who's to say that the hills weren't far away and just look similar in different spots?
My favorite way to debunk this conspiracy is the fact that you can see the flag up there using a good telescope. I'd like to see you critics try and explain that one away :)
In order for the hoax theorists to be correct, NASA dangled the astronauts from wires in an impossibly large vacuum environment and videod them in slow motion under an unfeasibly bright single spotlight. NASA workers would have to keep their secret for 40 years and the astronauts be deserving of oscars. Governments, scientists and technicians the world over would also have to be in on it especially America's arch enemy, the Soviets, who would know tv & radio signals were not being transmitted.
silly puppet!!! Its people like you who shouldn't have kids, its like the blind leading the blind know wonder the powers that be can place the biggest super power on the planet in the hands of a fuck wit like BUSH, i could be pissed, high as shit on coke & still have more commen since then you...
Fact is, your stupidity on the flight-time issue speaks for itself. To be so ignorant as to not know that Apollo and the Shuttle had different strength engines and different orbits, well-- how can you expect us to take you seriously? That was a fuck-up of COLOSSAL proportions.
Its not a disgrace to admit what the rest of us already know, that you have never opened a physics book in your life, and only cut and paste from the ignorant kook sites. Just admit that and we can start fresh.
66 hours to reach the Space Station which is a mere 185 miles above the Earth.
NASA claims apollo 13 was "55 hours" into its duration from "lift off" when it encountered a problem at a distance of "200,000 miles"... The moon is 250 000 miles away!
66 hours -> 185 miles shuttle to station
55 hours -> 200 000 miles 4/5ths to the moon
So, it took apollo ten hours less to travel 199 815 thousand miles more!?
The shuttle goes 185 miles UP. But that does not take into account the distance over the Earth it covers. Basically, it must catch up with the space station, which is in it's own orbit. The shuttle is sent to match the ISS's orbit.
Apollo, on the other hand, was sent to the moon's orbit, on an intercepting orbit. It didn't have to play "catch up". It merely had to have the moon's gravity capture them.
Also, by your own logic, Pioneer 10 must've been fake, because it only took THAT probe 11 hours to leave the Earth-moon system.
New Horizons took less time. So, why are these missions fake?
this guy talks about evidence why is he so willing to beleive they landed on the moon because NASA said it that is not science this guy is a retard he has a mind virus
the apollo adventures, Vietnam, 9/11, just to name a few... I don't think people believe these things because there is any truth or 'scientific evidence', (so called), I think certain people "bElieve" these things because of certain insecurities. Their belief is directly proportionate to their fear. They have become conditioned (brainwashed) into believing their leaders; and to never question authority. Science isn't a factor at all (orbital mechanics, give me a break!)
What we have here is a testbook case of Puff confusing knowledge with ignorance.
Puff: "I dont understand why the flighttimes are different, my McJob cohorts cant explain it, and NASA has never sent a personal rep to my door to explain it, therefore they're all evil and I'm so smart."
There's a reason they teach this stuff in college you know.
Advanced Newtonian orbital momentum and acceleration went over Puffs head? I cant imagine why...
Give the nutjobs hell, Argus Eyes. When you boil this argument down it comes to a simple fact that you state: The evidence FOR the landings far outweighs the evidence AGAINST. Not one piece of hard evidence has ever been produced by the conspiracy theorists. Not one top scientist in the world has backed the conspiracy theorists.
Instead of focusing on the 'conspiracy theorist', focus on the conspiracy the theorist is focusing on and prove him or her wrong. Just because an individual is in a position of authority does not mean he or she is telling the truth. People who have been dumbed down and trained or brainwashed via the 'education' system, as you obviously have been, are wholly incapable of questioning any event if it in turn brings negative reactions or results.
"Many people claim its true, but there is NO STRONG evidence to PROVE IT AT ALL!" (Just for starters...)
Which 'people' claim its true? What is the evidence? What is strong evidence? Do you have evidence it is NOT true. Are you an expert? Have you researched it. What kind of evidence is necceasary to prove / disprove this phenomonon. Am I just supposed to take your word for it that there is NO STRONG EVIDENCE... etc, etc
People are now questioning the 'apollo adventures AND nine / eleven more than ever before because alternate media sources are allowing them to do so. Before, we had no choice but to take mainstream media for their word. 85% of mass media is controlled by no more han five different corporations.The new copyright laws are being put into place so that internet can eventually be regulated and controlled as well - Internet II.
If it was true that man walked on the moon, it would be evident!
apollo ISN'T science; apollo is deception, special effects and acting.
if I won't take my nation's 'word' for it, why would I take another nations word for it?
Your arguements are weak and repetitive. I won't dispute generalitis; its an endless loop... go to one of the many apollo hoax or conspiracy videos if you are so keen on promoting your fantasy!
Scientists worldwide have examined the rocks. The spacecraft have been tracked to the moon with equipment. Russia listened in on the radio transmissions.
Also explain what makes other non-Apollo space missions NOT a deception, even though you appearently only have your nation's "word" on them.
Your biggest problem Puff, is that whenever any of us have mentioned "science," you run screaming like a little girl.
Remember when you said Apollo was fake cause the travel times werent the same as the Space Shuttle?
I brought up several facts you avoided, different engines, different orbits, different flightplans, and you had no response? You dropped the whole thing hoping we'd all forget how dumb you made yourself look?
It isn't science; it is 'professed' science. As for the shuttle and the saturn rockets having 'different' engines, orbits flight plans etc, so what? That is quite obvious. nevertheless, it takes the shuttle at least 66 hours to reach the space station. apollo 13 was only 55 hours into its flight and was already 200,000 miles away!? apollo 13 never really happen (except in cinema) the difference in times vs distances was simply a miscalculation by the deceivers. apollo 13 never left earths orbit.
YOU BROUGHT IT UP! And dropped it like a atomic potato when you had your not-so-educated ass handed to you. You didnt know ANYTHING about orbital paths or flight plans for two seperate vehicles going two seperate places, and you're making the same totally oblivious stupid mistake again.
The Shuttle ORBITS DOZENS of times before reaching the space station. Apollo didnt. That honestly goes over your head? (Cant imagine why...)
People question the Apollo landings ONLY because the Internet has no gatekeeper. ANY idiot can post any idiot webpage he feels like, and the average joe cant differentiate between the legitimate scientist and the kook in his basement. Since hundreds of idiots have posted webpages, you gullibly think that counts as "evidence," even though most of these sites just recycle each others manure.
A dumb idea is still a dumb idea no matter how many websites it has.
The problem is Puff, that the conspiracy is born OF THE conspiracy theorist. Remember, in 1969 there were no legions of scientists, no international astronomers at all who yelled "FAKE!" They saw the landing live and were convinced of what they saw.
Its only the deluded johnny-come-latelys like you years after the fact thinking you personally outsmarted all those legions of scientists.
Well you didnt.
This is a phony issue created by phony people, and best understood on that basis.
In 69, the public had no means of exchanging thoughts and ideas on the scale we are doing now. What the average person believied in 69 we don't know because it was not recorded. TV and radio were owned by the corporations, like they are now, and what was heard and seen was selected by the few who seek to control the many. If anyone wanted to yell 'FAKE' and was willing to provide the undistiputable evidence we have now to support this hoax, they would have not been given the 'air' time to do it.
And you're here to say that one idiot "exchanging ideas" with another idiot somehow makes them both smarter? That two wrongs DO make a right? You're too dumb to think that maybe like-minded paranoid people like surround themselves with yes-men? And that uneducated people NEVER admit they're uneducated?
The fact is, you dont have anything "indisputable" except the fact that everything you say here gets shot down (by more educated people) with pathetic ease. That speaks for itself.
None of what you are saying is easy to look up because its a bunch of bullshit. I'm not saying we didn't land or did land on the moon all in all does it really matter? No it doesn't. You aren't a moon expert however and its not like you have ever been there either so stop trying to sound intelligent by using your thesaurus thats to the right of your monitor and give this whole topic a rest because you can't prove anything either way.
I see you covered in detail some things I replied to him in summery! Excellent!
I find that if hoax believers are confronted with the issue of "no stars" in the images of other space missions, they suddenly become silent. That, or they shift their arguement, providing no sound explaination. Funny, isn't it?
spacesuits as the sun continued to rise and the surface temperature increased, but the effect was easily countered by the passive and active cooling systems.[12], pp. 165--67 The film was not in direct sunlight, so it wasn't overheated.
the film within the cameras; lunar module temperatures were controlled with similar coatings that gave it its gold color. Also, while the Moon's surface does get very hot at lunar noon, every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing site. During the longer stays, the astronauts did notice increased cooling loads on their
There is no atmosphere to efficiently couple lunar surface heat to devices such as cameras not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. The physics of radiative heat transfer are thoroughly understood, and the proper use of passive optical coatings and paints was adequate to control the temperature of
appear. A viewing of the videotape made during the Moonwalk shows that shortly after the astronauts remove their hands from the flag/flagpole, it stops moving and remains motionless. At one point the flag is in view for well over thirty minutes and it remains completely motionless throughout that period (and all similar periods).
fabric's rippled appearance was due to its having been folded during flight and gave it an appearance which could be mistaken for motion in a still photograph.The top supporting rod of the flag was telescopic and the crew of Apollo 11 found they could not fully extend it. Later crews did not fully extend this rod because they liked how it made the flag
The astronauts were moving the flag into position, causing motion. Since there is no air on the Moon to provide friction, these movements caused a long-lasting undulating movement seen in the flag. There was a rod extending from the top of the flagpole to hold the flag out for proper display (visible under the fabric in many photographs). The
...here are some facts..the flag cannot move thats impossible seeing as there is no wind on the moon. There are no stars in the backround of any photos taken which is also impossible. But that really does not matter because the photos are all fake. The suface of the moon is at much too high of a temperature for that to be possible. The film would have melted. What more proof do you really need?
when someone holds the pole the flag can move? Okay..yeah it could but not in a waving pattern unless somebody is waving the pole. And yes the moons surace is far to high of a degree for film to remain in its normal state. The extensive heat would have melted the film..how is that hard to comprehend?
that being the day time temp. of course because at night the moons temp is extremely cold but during the day can reach temperatures to 253 degrees f. The melting point of camera film? = 133 degrees f.
Have you looked at pictures from the space shuttle? How about the space station? Unmanned probes, like Voyager, Cassini, Galileo, and the Mars orbiters?
Guess what: No stars in the background either! Guess ALL of space missions are faked, huh?
You so-called "skeptics" like to claim that you will only believe theories if given facts, yet you never give any to support your position. All you do is give your opinion about conspiracy theorists...yet never any facts to disprove them! There are plenty of things regarding the moon landing that are questionable which of those things did you disproove with facts?
Now, I know that the conspiracy theorists yammer on a lot about the video/photo evidence but they have not presented one decent argument or observation about how these evidences prove the landing was faked.
Well its only one of the five foreign languages that I speak, so pardon me. Its clear to me that people believe the moonconspiracy because they have lost all faith in the us-government, which had been feeding them lie after lie. Fox-Tv is an well known outlet for the neocons and why do you think they are promoting the moonhoaxtheory in way that is simple to prove wrong?
I dont believe the moonconspiracy, but think this video is weak. Since the moonhoax was fed by Fox-tv of all stations, I think it is blown up by the CIA like the Rosswell incident to compromise conspiricytheories in general and 911 in particular. You can't judge 911 by this indeed weak moontheory. Your reasoning is flawed.
Listen to every source I can. Even saw a documentary from BBC called "The conspiracy files". Was a joke since they based it on the first report that later was altered. Thermite is a chemical used for special welding and by the army as a weapon. It is hard to set on fire but once lit; the temperature reaches thousands of degrees. Try google on this: "acebaker hunt rubble".
We saw people waving from the floors where the fire was burning. It was mostly smoke. Afterwards, when they started digging in the rubble, temperatures were high enough to melt steel. Glowing peaces of metal were picked up. If the temperature was that intense, people would not have survived for long. It indicates that something else caused an extremly high temperature at the end.
Ever made a camp fire? The best potato cooking comes from the end where the flames have died down and the coals are glowing hot. When the buildings collapsed there would have still been fires burning, but instead of being open and high-up they would have been enclosed in rock and kept tight and thus would have insulated heat more efficiently, like the coals in your camp fire.
Like I said, that's off the top of my head. Are you an expert in thermodynamics? Me neither. Plus something like this is quite unprecedented, plus the experts who thing about things like this don't believe that it was explosives (I don't want to hear about the one who was found under a rock who does).
So in the end.. it is reasonable to think that there were no explosives.
They found traces of thermite in the remains. Thermite in combination with explosives creates temperatures that are enough to melt down a car (or a steal frame). Strangely enough most of the metal was shipped to China for meltdown. If they really wanted to catch the terrorists, why destroying evidence? I believe explosives were used simply because everything is pointing in that direction.
Sorry, are you asking me? I don't know what thermite is but why could it have not been a part of the building anyway? Where are yous sources for all of this?
I don't deny that the moon landing took place but not sure either. Don't agree that there are strong evidence. The technique in -69 wasn't far developed. It's amazing they could do it. The computers at the time would be considered a joke today. Still perhaps they managed somehow. 911 is different. I don't know who was behind it but not a single doubt that explosives were used.
i do not doubt that planes went into the twin towers or that people have been to the moon.
but surely government involvement on 9 11 is undeniable. theres a couple of guys i have subscribed to that have some brilliant videos, far more open minded than your own.
i doubt ill be able to effect your opinion as you were arrogent enough to post it as fact, but leaving this comment may lead others to more intellectual videos
This attitude that conspiracy theorists have that people who don't agree with them have not done their research. INtrigues me. I've seen plenty of moon landing conspiracy videos, materials and arguments.
And I still get the line. "just watch THIS video and it'll convince you".
Chances are I've seen the damn thing and it's a load of bull.
god you love the moon landing. i dont know much about it. its bugging you i see.
911 theories are entirely plausable because the government iquiry was so dreadful; the funding, skimming and it was not given full access to all sources.
ooo your gonna watch it! its very long. either watch zeitgeist if it hasnt been removed as it often does or actually there is quite a short one that has been released recently, but its not very full. go with the 50 minute one. 911 revisited.
if you have the time find zeitgeist, you can skip through the religious stuff, although that's interesting too. and theres a series called 911 coincidences. from watching them all you can get a good clear picture.
What is the simplest explaination? That Nasa spent millions of dollars designing and building all essential parts to safely send people to the moon, using their poor excuse for computer power and radiation protection (during the Suns most violent stage). In 1969!
Or is the simplest solution that the government wanted to win the spacerace (wich would pretty much end the cold war)so bad that they faked it?
If you can use Occam's razor as "proof", or to validate your opinion, so can I.
That being said, i agree with you. The evidence points to there being a moonlanding, and most of the so called conspiracy-theorists are simply morons.
But I wouldn't trust a government-funded organisation to ever tell the truth.
Ever heard of a book?? Retards I swear we have been to the moon, my own relatives work at NASA and I have seen actual moon rocks and they have proven to me that those rocks are not of this Earth!!!
So you don't even know what you are talking about!!!
Everything you said is unscientific and totally repelled by logic. You really aren't a skeptic but a follower of govt. propaganda. Conspiracy Facts are not theory, it's fact.
Very true, you have a great way of getting ur thoughts across. Damn youtube frustrates me, video is a very persuasive medium. People can blindly believe a theory by a well placed edit or song track. Damn it to hell! its to hard to debate such a ludacris theory. Its like trying to convince a christian theres no god. Arrrrghhhh! each to his own opinion I supose.
So this skeptic believes that we landed on the Moon because he claims that he has overwhelming evidence!
He must also believe that we went to Mars, because the same evidence was directed by the same person...Stanley Kubrick. The only difference was the title of his evidence: "Apollo 11" and "Capricorn 1".
I did watch it. Obviously you don't know what you said in your own video. Evolution is probably the biggest conspiracy theory ever created. Think about it.
Well, I don't think you converted anyone. But it's cool that you make the effort! The guy asking where the mirrors are that we use to measure the distance to the moon. He's never gonna believe we went to the moon, though in all fairness, he may be joking!
Very good comments. True skeptics are skeptical of even other skeptics. This is a good thing, and you are correct, the body of evidence is that man did go to the moon, and yes was very lucky to do it several times. Also, Apollo 10 is never mention by those who feel that we didn't go. Apollo 11 was the third trip.
It's said that the moon is in essence similar to the earth in its make up, it may even have been part of the earth once, why didn't they bring a bored 2m deep sample to tell us something interesting on its history instead of a few loose rocks? How un-scientific!Meteorites exist all over the earth, such samples are not uncommon.Humans like yourself are gullible and easily manipulated and convinced,the evidence is very flaky.
Humans like yourself!? Where the hell are you from mars?
There are more than 3 proofs. This video is not about proving the moon landing. But chew on this. Radio telemetry.
Hmm, I made a reply to kondoboy a while back but it seems that youtube has lost yet another one of my comments. Grr. So I shall ask you about the radio telemetry. The telemetry from the Apollo 11 capsule was tracked by many amateurs as well as the parkes observatory (see the dish).
They DID bring several core samples from 24 different locations going as deep as 3 meters into the soil. Examining these samples has revealed evidence of Sun's behaviour going back 500 million years!
And 'a few loose rocks'? I wouldn't exactly describe 382kg of rocks with those words. Do some research on the moon rocks you will find out that they are way too unique to fool any geologist who has ever studied them.
Bearing in mind they were wearing nothing but a several layers of tin foil and polythene for protection in 200 degrees plus and minus temps in shade and light,getting showered by unearthly amounts of solar and space radiation with no atmosphere to protect them and experiencing a 6th of gravity for the 1st time.
Yes, 200 degrees *on the surface*. There is no air on the moon. Also, the missions took place during lunar morning when surface temperatures are not that high.
How much is 'unearthly amounts' and what makes you think any radiation astronauts would receive on the moon would be enough to prevent manned missions?
The first man in orbit was achieved in 1961 and was Russian, the US supposedly walked on the moon in 69 which involves traveling an uncharted distance of approx 240,000 miles, boarding a mini craft and landing driving and messing about, getting back into the craft zipping back up to mother ship and returning to earth with no incident!
What is your point? Take some time to research Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. Lot of the stuff done in Apollo 11 had already been done in previous Apollo missions. Base work for Apollo was gained from Mercury and Gemini programs.
With respect you are a deluded hypocrite. You claim to be a skeptic at the beginning of your video yet by the end your condemning them! The evidence is not overwhelming either.Your 3 solid proofs were seeing the rocket take off, leaving the earths atmosphere and the presentation of "moon rocks".The first two proofs involve leaving the earths orbit.
If you are true skeptic, you'll ask yourself why it's gonna take 55 years since the last moon mission to return. Also, why China and USA's projected timeline to reach the moon is identical, even though we did it so easily with 32KB computers in 1969.
What is this compelling evidence that you speak of? I mean sure there is a lot of data and pictures but they are all supplied by NASA. When you control everything in house of course you can provide compelling evidence, because the source is NASA.
The very fact that no manned mission besides apollo has gone beyond 350 is very telling. In addition, the lunar module was never tested for its landing capabilities, yet it worked in the first try.
A true skeptic demands independent confirmation of the moon landings. Apollo had none.
You bring up moon rocks. 90% of the supposed moon rocks that have been brought back have not been released to the public. The little sugar lump size samples they give out for independent review could have easily been retrieved through unmanned missions.
When one endlessly demands to be convinced in the face of compelling evidence, they are not a sceptic but a denier.
Yes, I suppose that they could have brought back the rocks. But you see, a claim like that requires evidence. You can't just keep on saying "They could have done this, they could have done that".
Also I dont think all so called conspiracy theory's should be lumped together under a cloak of psychological bias. Its easy to be intellectually dishonest on either side of the fence. e.g, Its a conspiracy theory therefore its value is less, than the official theory. Each one requires a critical objective analysis. Cheers!
Good video, something you may be interested in - Apparently Uri Gagarin was not the first man in space. He was the first successful russian cosmonaut in space. Others before him were not successful, and hence you do not hear about the efforts of these men.
Something to consider; the conspiracy theorists tend to pick on events that have gained a lot of public engagement.
You don't hear about hoax theories about the unmanned space probes that have been across our solar system.
In my view, the Hoax Believers simply pick on Apollo because of the attention it recieved. If they picked on, say, the Mariner 10 mission, its a good bet HBers would have a smaller audience.
When you do make another video, you may point that out.
I've heard all these arguments before. The majority of them come from analysing pictures. Pictures are not a perfect representation of reality, they are subject to photographic effects.
About the missing material.. Have you heard of Occam's razor? Basically it means "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one". Is it more reasonable to expect that nasa faked the moon landing and have destroyed the data, or that they are simply incompetent?
How bout this for a question-- Why are blueprints and design and development drawings of the machines involved, telemetry tapes, the original high quality video of the Apollo 11 Moonwalk, original tapes containing telemetry and video from the other five manned missions and other key documents that would help to validate the missions missing?
The news that the tapes were missing broke publicly on August 5, 2006 when the printed and online versions of "The Sydney Morning Herald" published the story with the title "One giant blunder for mankind: how NASA lost moon pictures."
NASA is also looking for these tapes as the new Project Orion will carry out the same tasks as the original Apollo Command and Service Modules: "Get a team of astronauts to the moon and back safely" Why would this be neccesary today if it was already done?
All the telemetry, biomed data etc had been transcribed from the telemetry tapes to either printed hard copy, audio reels, and videotape. The information contained on them is not missing per se. The original video is _not_ high quality, just cleaner (I defy you to explain how 320 lines 10fps is high quality).
The general blueprints are still around. Dedicated people saved them from the trash.
Precisely detailed blueprints that show how to make the machines aren't around because they aren't needed anymore. That's how the industry works; they don't archive blueprints for stuff they don't make anymore.
Facts are Facts regardless of the gravity of the detail. If ONE question is valid concerning the missions and NASA would not like to address that makes me skeptic.
Just what kind of conspiracy-related material have you been looking into? Doesn't sound to me like you've heard a whole lot. Incidentally, I suggest you keep a lookout for my next MoonFaker project.
It obviously was not faked. 750,000 people were involved in creating the mission, can you imagine the massive lid that would have to be kept on that secret? Someone would have blabbed, it would of come out somehow.
You can claim anything is a conspiracy if you want to believe it enough.
jackheaney 1 year ago
We couldn't have landed on the moon.
chippedbeef08 2 years ago
@chippedbeef08 You couldn't, I'll give you that. But you see, not everybody is retarded. There aren't many retards among the rocket scientists or astronauts.: )
winterstellar 1 year ago
Moon hoax believers dont ignore the moon rocks. They say that Werner von Braun went to Antarctica to collect samples from a meteorite. There is a lot of evidence that indicates that man never walked on the moon. No blast crater, weird ligtning and the list goes on and on.
The astronauts were launched with the rocket into earth orbit where they stayed for about 8 days and then descended to earth.
VannaTroms 2 years ago
von Braun went scouting for possible training sites. Antarctica has some of the worlds driest spaces, so may have been a viable site, but it was too inconvenient.
Lunites (lunar meteorites) are chemically changed by the trip through the atmosphere, and absorb moisture once they are here. They are different from the rocks apollo brought back as verified in labs all over the world.
The Soviets and the UK tracked the missions all the way there and back again.
drewid88 2 years ago
No blast crater is due to the very small acceleration due to gravity (which is 9.8m/s^2 on earth). since force = mass x gravity...and accelearation due to gravity on moon is 1.6m/s^2. The reason it did not make a blast crater is the force exerted was too small....please understand some physics first please.
amitrayit1990 2 years ago
this goes to show that there are still people that still believe in crack-pot theroies , what's next?...the government is kepping tabs on citizens with biological gps systems that are disguised as birthmarks? or little green men are sending mind control rays in power lines?
avran89 3 years ago
".the government is kepping tabs on citizens with biological gps systems that are disguised as birthmarks?"
Better than that, The latest one I heard was that the gubmint is spying on us through our digital TV equipment, which is why TV companies are switching the analoguie equipment off.
\o\oh there's another as well. "NASA is _propogating_ the moon hoax theories out there in order to gain funding ZOMG"
drewid88 2 years ago
Very interesting point of view. Problem: you mention two very different challenges to 'accepted belief'- moon landings and UFO/aliens in the same breath. I agree that evidence is vital to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) that a theory is correct. That is a definition of science. What you forget to say is that (for example) large amounts of evidence for lunar expeditions is missing (what a waste- and WHY?); MUCH of the evidence, destroyed. That is why counter-argument uses the bits; no choice!
philomorphologian 3 years ago
People tend to be apathetic, simply taking what is fed to them. Conspiracies are real, many are never even theorized. Discerning between the real and unreal involves much skepticism.
9/11 has many conspiracy theories. The government has a conspiracy theory, which has some holes in it as well as facts to support it. We must be skeptical if we are ever to understand what happened. The truth is what really happened, understanding it is the challenge.
tooomp 3 years ago
dude your reasons why it happened....not very strong evidence. just because a rock has holes in it....LOOK A MOON ROCK there are tons of those where i live. the rocket taking off? unmanned maybe?!
gendoboy 3 years ago
As I understand it. The rock has special characteristics that rock on earth does not have.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
watch myth busters lol and i am pretty sure a moon rock is different from rocks were you live
AwsomestKill 2 years ago
ok I will. still i don't care much about the topic. space exploration does not interest me much. we have enough problems here we need to deal with befor we look beyond them.
ChoyaMan 3 years ago
Luckily there are people in this world who do not have that attitude, who realise that if we think like that then we will never create anything of beauty or scientific progress because human problems will always exist.
Also, never is scientific endevour useless. We gain from it in many differend fields and ways.
ArgusEyes 3 years ago
Agreed. you have a nice day.
ChoyaMan 3 years ago
hahahahaha
Artifalia 3 years ago
The apollo 11 mission was a hoax. Not the later missions.
pimpmaroc 3 years ago
Well said Argus. The government & NASA are not the only source of proof that the world has. Both professional and amateur astronomers around the world tracked the Apollo missions extensively. The independent evidence, from non-governmental observers, that large objects exhibiting exactly the configuration and behavior of the Apollo spacecraft were seen en route to and from the Moon.
Synthetrix 3 years ago
Skeptics might say that because there are similarities in the background of some of the footage that they used the same backdrop to hoax there shot. Who's to say that the hills weren't far away and just look similar in different spots?
My favorite way to debunk this conspiracy is the fact that you can see the flag up there using a good telescope. I'd like to see you critics try and explain that one away :)
ChoyaMan 3 years ago
well said.
vet8mambo 3 years ago
In order for the hoax theorists to be correct, NASA dangled the astronauts from wires in an impossibly large vacuum environment and videod them in slow motion under an unfeasibly bright single spotlight. NASA workers would have to keep their secret for 40 years and the astronauts be deserving of oscars. Governments, scientists and technicians the world over would also have to be in on it especially America's arch enemy, the Soviets, who would know tv & radio signals were not being transmitted.
davewatcher 3 years ago
lunar observatory
the moon hoax advocates nightmare
KevinTechnology 3 years ago
how lame...
eric1love 3 years ago
you have a mind virus you suffer from delusion you are a retard you come across as a bit thick.
properwired 4 years ago
Speak English jackass
TrikkerMan2 4 years ago
silly puppet!!! Its people like you who shouldn't have kids, its like the blind leading the blind know wonder the powers that be can place the biggest super power on the planet in the hands of a fuck wit like BUSH, i could be pissed, high as shit on coke & still have more commen since then you...
mark91101 4 years ago
But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
Daniel 12: 4
puffrooster 4 years ago
Fact is, your stupidity on the flight-time issue speaks for itself. To be so ignorant as to not know that Apollo and the Shuttle had different strength engines and different orbits, well-- how can you expect us to take you seriously? That was a fuck-up of COLOSSAL proportions.
Its not a disgrace to admit what the rest of us already know, that you have never opened a physics book in your life, and only cut and paste from the ignorant kook sites. Just admit that and we can start fresh.
SpreadingtheMuse 4 years ago
Fact is about the Shuttle vs Apollo tom-foolery, you're making incredibly naive assumptions:
1) EVEN if they were both going to the same place, they still took different routes to get there.
2) Even if the routes were identical, the engine thrusts were not.
3) Even if the thrusts were identical, the ENGINES were not (rocket boosters vs 3 stage Saturn).
4) Even if the engines were the same, the MASS was not.
Did I lose you already?
SpreadingtheMuse 4 years ago
66 hours to reach the Space Station which is a mere 185 miles above the Earth.
NASA claims apollo 13 was "55 hours" into its duration from "lift off" when it encountered a problem at a distance of "200,000 miles"... The moon is 250 000 miles away!
66 hours -> 185 miles shuttle to station
55 hours -> 200 000 miles 4/5ths to the moon
So, it took apollo ten hours less to travel 199 815 thousand miles more!?
R i i i i i i i i i g h t....
(your an idiot, now fuck off)
puffrooster 4 years ago
Puff, if you're honestly a Mcjob stupid enough to think a several thousand ton space vehicle is just an overgrown BOTTLE ROCKET, and NASA says:
"The space station is almost here, almost...almost... FIRE!"
Then you are every bit the lunatic retard I think you are.
The space shuttle ORBITS.
It orbits DOZENS OF TIMES before reaching the space station. APOLLO DIDNT.
Was READING about the Shuttle's path too hard? Even know what an "orbit" is? Cause at this point I'd bet good money you dont...
SpreadingtheMuse 4 years ago
Your ignorance of orbital mechanics is evidence.
The shuttle goes 185 miles UP. But that does not take into account the distance over the Earth it covers. Basically, it must catch up with the space station, which is in it's own orbit. The shuttle is sent to match the ISS's orbit.
thirdclass2006 4 years ago
Apollo, on the other hand, was sent to the moon's orbit, on an intercepting orbit. It didn't have to play "catch up". It merely had to have the moon's gravity capture them.
Also, by your own logic, Pioneer 10 must've been fake, because it only took THAT probe 11 hours to leave the Earth-moon system.
New Horizons took less time. So, why are these missions fake?
thirdclass2006 4 years ago
this guy talks about evidence why is he so willing to beleive they landed on the moon because NASA said it that is not science this guy is a retard he has a mind virus
properwired 4 years ago
the apollo adventures, Vietnam, 9/11, just to name a few... I don't think people believe these things because there is any truth or 'scientific evidence', (so called), I think certain people "bElieve" these things because of certain insecurities. Their belief is directly proportionate to their fear. They have become conditioned (brainwashed) into believing their leaders; and to never question authority. Science isn't a factor at all (orbital mechanics, give me a break!)
puffrooster 4 years ago
What we have here is a testbook case of Puff confusing knowledge with ignorance.
Puff: "I dont understand why the flighttimes are different, my McJob cohorts cant explain it, and NASA has never sent a personal rep to my door to explain it, therefore they're all evil and I'm so smart."
There's a reason they teach this stuff in college you know.
Advanced Newtonian orbital momentum and acceleration went over Puffs head? I cant imagine why...
SpreadingtheMuse 4 years ago
Wow, you can quote the bible.
How about quoting something about orbital mechanics?
thirdclass2006 4 years ago
this video should be in "Politics" or People and Bloggs, not in Howto & Style
GreyAutumn 4 years ago
Give the nutjobs hell, Argus Eyes. When you boil this argument down it comes to a simple fact that you state: The evidence FOR the landings far outweighs the evidence AGAINST. Not one piece of hard evidence has ever been produced by the conspiracy theorists. Not one top scientist in the world has backed the conspiracy theorists.
Rhubba 4 years ago
Instead of focusing on the 'conspiracy theorist', focus on the conspiracy the theorist is focusing on and prove him or her wrong. Just because an individual is in a position of authority does not mean he or she is telling the truth. People who have been dumbed down and trained or brainwashed via the 'education' system, as you obviously have been, are wholly incapable of questioning any event if it in turn brings negative reactions or results.
puffrooster 4 years ago
How is it obvious that ArgusEyes has been dumbed down/trained/brainwashed? Is it because he speaks against conspiracy theories?
It isn't about one's position in authority that makes a person right. It's about the facts that are given, and if good and true science supports them.
thirdclass2006 4 years ago
Did you watch the video?
"Many people claim its true, but there is NO STRONG evidence to PROVE IT AT ALL!" (Just for starters...)
Which 'people' claim its true? What is the evidence? What is strong evidence? Do you have evidence it is NOT true. Are you an expert? Have you researched it. What kind of evidence is necceasary to prove / disprove this phenomonon. Am I just supposed to take your word for it that there is NO STRONG EVIDENCE... etc, etc
Get it?
puffrooster 4 years ago
Yes, I watched the video.
What people claim its true? The ones that come up with the theory itself and their followers. Example of both: Ralph Rene and JarrahWhite.
If you do your own research, claims by conspriacy theorists can be shown to lack evidence. The Moon Hoax Theory is one prime example.
thirdclass2006 4 years ago
People are now questioning the 'apollo adventures AND nine / eleven more than ever before because alternate media sources are allowing them to do so. Before, we had no choice but to take mainstream media for their word. 85% of mass media is controlled by no more han five different corporations.The new copyright laws are being put into place so that internet can eventually be regulated and controlled as well - Internet II.
If it was true that man walked on the moon, it would be evident!
puffrooster 4 years ago
It IS evident that humans walked on the moon.
The people that claim otherwise just don't see it.
The mass media doesn't control science, and the science behind Apollo is sound. Nations not-so-nice to the US confirmed Apollo's flight to the moon.
thirdclass2006 4 years ago
The atomic bomb is 'evident'! apollo IS NOT.
apollo ISN'T science; apollo is deception, special effects and acting.
if I won't take my nation's 'word' for it, why would I take another nations word for it?
Your arguements are weak and repetitive. I won't dispute generalitis; its an endless loop... go to one of the many apollo hoax or conspiracy videos if you are so keen on promoting your fantasy!
puffrooster 4 years ago
Explain how Apollo isn't science.
Scientists worldwide have examined the rocks. The spacecraft have been tracked to the moon with equipment. Russia listened in on the radio transmissions.
Also explain what makes other non-Apollo space missions NOT a deception, even though you appearently only have your nation's "word" on them.
thirdclass2006 4 years ago
Your biggest problem Puff, is that whenever any of us have mentioned "science," you run screaming like a little girl.
Remember when you said Apollo was fake cause the travel times werent the same as the Space Shuttle?
I brought up several facts you avoided, different engines, different orbits, different flightplans, and you had no response? You dropped the whole thing hoping we'd all forget how dumb you made yourself look?
Well we didnt forget, and you were the idiot.
SpreadingtheMuse 4 years ago
It isn't science; it is 'professed' science. As for the shuttle and the saturn rockets having 'different' engines, orbits flight plans etc, so what? That is quite obvious. nevertheless, it takes the shuttle at least 66 hours to reach the space station. apollo 13 was only 55 hours into its flight and was already 200,000 miles away!? apollo 13 never really happen (except in cinema) the difference in times vs distances was simply a miscalculation by the deceivers. apollo 13 never left earths orbit.
puffrooster 4 years ago
"So what?"
YOU BROUGHT IT UP! And dropped it like a atomic potato when you had your not-so-educated ass handed to you. You didnt know ANYTHING about orbital paths or flight plans for two seperate vehicles going two seperate places, and you're making the same totally oblivious stupid mistake again.
The Shuttle ORBITS DOZENS of times before reaching the space station. Apollo didnt. That honestly goes over your head? (Cant imagine why...)
SpreadingtheMuse 4 years ago
People question the Apollo landings ONLY because the Internet has no gatekeeper. ANY idiot can post any idiot webpage he feels like, and the average joe cant differentiate between the legitimate scientist and the kook in his basement. Since hundreds of idiots have posted webpages, you gullibly think that counts as "evidence," even though most of these sites just recycle each others manure.
A dumb idea is still a dumb idea no matter how many websites it has.
SpreadingtheMuse 4 years ago
The problem is Puff, that the conspiracy is born OF THE conspiracy theorist. Remember, in 1969 there were no legions of scientists, no international astronomers at all who yelled "FAKE!" They saw the landing live and were convinced of what they saw.
Its only the deluded johnny-come-latelys like you years after the fact thinking you personally outsmarted all those legions of scientists.
Well you didnt.
This is a phony issue created by phony people, and best understood on that basis.
SpreadingtheMuse 4 years ago
In 69, the public had no means of exchanging thoughts and ideas on the scale we are doing now. What the average person believied in 69 we don't know because it was not recorded. TV and radio were owned by the corporations, like they are now, and what was heard and seen was selected by the few who seek to control the many. If anyone wanted to yell 'FAKE' and was willing to provide the undistiputable evidence we have now to support this hoax, they would have not been given the 'air' time to do it.
puffrooster 4 years ago
And you're here to say that one idiot "exchanging ideas" with another idiot somehow makes them both smarter? That two wrongs DO make a right? You're too dumb to think that maybe like-minded paranoid people like surround themselves with yes-men? And that uneducated people NEVER admit they're uneducated?
The fact is, you dont have anything "indisputable" except the fact that everything you say here gets shot down (by more educated people) with pathetic ease. That speaks for itself.
SpreadingtheMuse 4 years ago
B.T.W. None of that was hard to look up. I must say it's impressive the amount of claims that the denialists come out with.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
None of what you are saying is easy to look up because its a bunch of bullshit. I'm not saying we didn't land or did land on the moon all in all does it really matter? No it doesn't. You aren't a moon expert however and its not like you have ever been there either so stop trying to sound intelligent by using your thesaurus thats to the right of your monitor and give this whole topic a rest because you can't prove anything either way.
kjv2323 4 years ago
Yeah I didn't expect you to be able to offer a sound response to those facts.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
I just thought I'd say that kjv2323's response was to essentially call me gay. So I think we'll say adeu to him and leave the facts unchallenged.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
I see you covered in detail some things I replied to him in summery! Excellent!
I find that if hoax believers are confronted with the issue of "no stars" in the images of other space missions, they suddenly become silent. That, or they shift their arguement, providing no sound explaination. Funny, isn't it?
thirdclass2006 4 years ago
I've heard all of their tired little claims over and over again. They all have answers that they don't seem to want to discover.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
Indeed, they just repeat what they "learned" from people like Sibrel, Kaysing, Percy, Rene, ect.
If the answer can't be found with them, then they make stuff up.
I know one guy that deliberately lies, and seems to firmly believe that what he says is the truth. How these people function in life is beyond me.
thirdclass2006 4 years ago
You've been confronted with sciene that you appearently don't understand, so you label it "bullshit".
Well, that's okay. You can earn yourself the label "ignorant".
thirdclass2006 4 years ago
spacesuits as the sun continued to rise and the surface temperature increased, but the effect was easily countered by the passive and active cooling systems.[12], pp. 165--67 The film was not in direct sunlight, so it wasn't overheated.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
the film within the cameras; lunar module temperatures were controlled with similar coatings that gave it its gold color. Also, while the Moon's surface does get very hot at lunar noon, every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing site. During the longer stays, the astronauts did notice increased cooling loads on their
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
There is no atmosphere to efficiently couple lunar surface heat to devices such as cameras not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. The physics of radiative heat transfer are thoroughly understood, and the proper use of passive optical coatings and paints was adequate to control the temperature of
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
appear. A viewing of the videotape made during the Moonwalk shows that shortly after the astronauts remove their hands from the flag/flagpole, it stops moving and remains motionless. At one point the flag is in view for well over thirty minutes and it remains completely motionless throughout that period (and all similar periods).
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
fabric's rippled appearance was due to its having been folded during flight and gave it an appearance which could be mistaken for motion in a still photograph.The top supporting rod of the flag was telescopic and the crew of Apollo 11 found they could not fully extend it. Later crews did not fully extend this rod because they liked how it made the flag
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
The astronauts were moving the flag into position, causing motion. Since there is no air on the Moon to provide friction, these movements caused a long-lasting undulating movement seen in the flag. There was a rod extending from the top of the flagpole to hold the flag out for proper display (visible under the fabric in many photographs). The
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
...here are some facts..the flag cannot move thats impossible seeing as there is no wind on the moon. There are no stars in the backround of any photos taken which is also impossible. But that really does not matter because the photos are all fake. The suface of the moon is at much too high of a temperature for that to be possible. The film would have melted. What more proof do you really need?
kjv2323 4 years ago
Some that isn't bollocks.
The flag can move. When someone holds the pole.
The shutter speed of the camera is too fast to capture the stars.
The moon too hot. W.T.F?! Where did you get that garbage from?
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
when someone holds the pole the flag can move? Okay..yeah it could but not in a waving pattern unless somebody is waving the pole. And yes the moons surace is far to high of a degree for film to remain in its normal state. The extensive heat would have melted the film..how is that hard to comprehend?
kjv2323 4 years ago
that being the day time temp. of course because at night the moons temp is extremely cold but during the day can reach temperatures to 253 degrees f. The melting point of camera film? = 133 degrees f.
kjv2323 4 years ago
The camera film was not in contact with the lunar surface. The only way temperature could have effected it is if there was a transfer of heat.
Not only were the cameras insulated, but they also weren't set down on the ground.
thirdclass2006 4 years ago
The flag is wrinkled in still photos, NOT waving.
thirdclass2006 4 years ago
Oh goodie, the "no stars" arguement!
Have you looked at pictures from the space shuttle? How about the space station? Unmanned probes, like Voyager, Cassini, Galileo, and the Mars orbiters?
Guess what: No stars in the background either! Guess ALL of space missions are faked, huh?
thirdclass2006 4 years ago
dude....with a voice like that...you could be Kermit the frogs brother.
aeonflux67 4 years ago
That's clearly bull. I've never heard anyone say that my voice sounds like that. So you're pretty much a douchebag.
Oh.. and be banned.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
You so-called "skeptics" like to claim that you will only believe theories if given facts, yet you never give any to support your position. All you do is give your opinion about conspiracy theorists...yet never any facts to disprove them! There are plenty of things regarding the moon landing that are questionable which of those things did you disproove with facts?
julzabro 4 years ago
Facts that support the moon landing:
- moon rocks
- telemtry of the
- observation of the flight
- video / photographic evidence of the trip
Now, I know that the conspiracy theorists yammer on a lot about the video/photo evidence but they have not presented one decent argument or observation about how these evidences prove the landing was faked.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
Well its only one of the five foreign languages that I speak, so pardon me. Its clear to me that people believe the moonconspiracy because they have lost all faith in the us-government, which had been feeding them lie after lie. Fox-Tv is an well known outlet for the neocons and why do you think they are promoting the moonhoaxtheory in way that is simple to prove wrong?
lasker341 4 years ago
I dont believe the moonconspiracy, but think this video is weak. Since the moonhoax was fed by Fox-tv of all stations, I think it is blown up by the CIA like the Rosswell incident to compromise conspiricytheories in general and 911 in particular. You can't judge 911 by this indeed weak moontheory. Your reasoning is flawed.
lasker341 4 years ago
As is your English, I don't know what you are saying.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
I am very skeptical about your comments because you are only talking about the obvious differences between a skeptic and conspiracy theorist...
xpez 4 years ago
Listen to every source I can. Even saw a documentary from BBC called "The conspiracy files". Was a joke since they based it on the first report that later was altered. Thermite is a chemical used for special welding and by the army as a weapon. It is hard to set on fire but once lit; the temperature reaches thousands of degrees. Try google on this: "acebaker hunt rubble".
squiggey 4 years ago
We saw people waving from the floors where the fire was burning. It was mostly smoke. Afterwards, when they started digging in the rubble, temperatures were high enough to melt steel. Glowing peaces of metal were picked up. If the temperature was that intense, people would not have survived for long. It indicates that something else caused an extremly high temperature at the end.
squiggey 4 years ago
I haven't heard that claim before. A couple of thoughts off the top of my head:
Explosives are a very violent destructive act within a short span of time, I don't see why they would lend that much heat.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
Ever made a camp fire? The best potato cooking comes from the end where the flames have died down and the coals are glowing hot. When the buildings collapsed there would have still been fires burning, but instead of being open and high-up they would have been enclosed in rock and kept tight and thus would have insulated heat more efficiently, like the coals in your camp fire.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
Like I said, that's off the top of my head. Are you an expert in thermodynamics? Me neither. Plus something like this is quite unprecedented, plus the experts who thing about things like this don't believe that it was explosives (I don't want to hear about the one who was found under a rock who does).
So in the end.. it is reasonable to think that there were no explosives.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
They found traces of thermite in the remains. Thermite in combination with explosives creates temperatures that are enough to melt down a car (or a steal frame). Strangely enough most of the metal was shipped to China for meltdown. If they really wanted to catch the terrorists, why destroying evidence? I believe explosives were used simply because everything is pointing in that direction.
squiggey 4 years ago
Sorry, are you asking me? I don't know what thermite is but why could it have not been a part of the building anyway? Where are yous sources for all of this?
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
I don't deny that the moon landing took place but not sure either. Don't agree that there are strong evidence. The technique in -69 wasn't far developed. It's amazing they could do it. The computers at the time would be considered a joke today. Still perhaps they managed somehow. 911 is different. I don't know who was behind it but not a single doubt that explosives were used.
squiggey 4 years ago
No. Explosives were not used.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
i am the moon and humans have conquered me
percytheniglet 4 years ago
haha lol
Jordie0405 4 years ago
i do not doubt that planes went into the twin towers or that people have been to the moon.
but surely government involvement on 9 11 is undeniable. theres a couple of guys i have subscribed to that have some brilliant videos, far more open minded than your own.
i doubt ill be able to effect your opinion as you were arrogent enough to post it as fact, but leaving this comment may lead others to more intellectual videos
swastikkamassala 4 years ago
I can spot a conspiracy theorist from a million miles away.
A pugnacious attitude coupled with an almost religious fanaticism towards flawed arguments is one sign.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
as i said, im not gonna try to change your opinion. its not my place.
if you had watched the 911 videos you would have found there are a million arguements that point to government influence.
the moon landing is one thing, this is entirely different. you cannot possibly group them together
swastikkamassala 4 years ago
This attitude that conspiracy theorists have that people who don't agree with them have not done their research. INtrigues me. I've seen plenty of moon landing conspiracy videos, materials and arguments.
And I still get the line. "just watch THIS video and it'll convince you".
Chances are I've seen the damn thing and it's a load of bull.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
god you love the moon landing. i dont know much about it. its bugging you i see.
911 theories are entirely plausable because the government iquiry was so dreadful; the funding, skimming and it was not given full access to all sources.
read it up, itll help you grow
swastikkamassala 4 years ago
swastikkamassala. What is this video called?
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
ooo your gonna watch it! its very long. either watch zeitgeist if it hasnt been removed as it often does or actually there is quite a short one that has been released recently, but its not very full. go with the 50 minute one. 911 revisited.
if you have the time find zeitgeist, you can skip through the religious stuff, although that's interesting too. and theres a series called 911 coincidences. from watching them all you can get a good clear picture.
even if you dont believe, fasinating.
swastikkamassala 4 years ago
Lol, look at badastronomy*dot*com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html for an in-depth dissection of how idiotic moon landing conspiracies are.
Whilt 4 years ago
Yup, phil will set it all right.
I think I reference some bad astronomy pages in the companion article.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
Could a moon landing denier please give me their one best piece of evidence against the moon landing?
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
How about Occam's razor? You used it yourself.
What is the simplest explaination? That Nasa spent millions of dollars designing and building all essential parts to safely send people to the moon, using their poor excuse for computer power and radiation protection (during the Suns most violent stage). In 1969!
Or is the simplest solution that the government wanted to win the spacerace (wich would pretty much end the cold war)so bad that they faked it?
calliewops 4 years ago
If you can use Occam's razor as "proof", or to validate your opinion, so can I.
That being said, i agree with you. The evidence points to there being a moonlanding, and most of the so called conspiracy-theorists are simply morons.
But I wouldn't trust a government-funded organisation to ever tell the truth.
calliewops 4 years ago
k, occam's razor is not a law or definitive proof of any kind. And I'm sorry that I mentioned it.
I want a piece of evidence, or a logical argument, that severely supports the moon landing hoax idea.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
Ever heard of a book?? Retards I swear we have been to the moon, my own relatives work at NASA and I have seen actual moon rocks and they have proven to me that those rocks are not of this Earth!!!
So you don't even know what you are talking about!!!
scarletdeath392 4 years ago
Everything you said is unscientific and totally repelled by logic. You really aren't a skeptic but a follower of govt. propaganda. Conspiracy Facts are not theory, it's fact.
Koolvedge 4 years ago
LOOK IT UP
lnlgs 4 years ago
RUMSFLD AND KISSNGR FAK'D MOOOON WLK
lnlgs 4 years ago
YOU NEED TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK GENIUS !!!
lnlgs 4 years ago
WATCH "MOON LANDING FAKE OR FACT"
lnlgs 4 years ago
INCREDIBLE INFO - UNBELIEVABLE
lnlgs 4 years ago
please watch "Moon Landing A Fake or Fact"
lnlgs 4 years ago
Very true, you have a great way of getting ur thoughts across. Damn youtube frustrates me, video is a very persuasive medium. People can blindly believe a theory by a well placed edit or song track. Damn it to hell! its to hard to debate such a ludacris theory. Its like trying to convince a christian theres no god. Arrrrghhhh! each to his own opinion I supose.
getonitman20 4 years ago
And then again, some people just have their minds made up and are totally oblivious to the truth...no matter how rude of an awakening they get.
fanbutton 4 years ago
So this skeptic believes that we landed on the Moon because he claims that he has overwhelming evidence!
He must also believe that we went to Mars, because the same evidence was directed by the same person...Stanley Kubrick. The only difference was the title of his evidence: "Apollo 11" and "Capricorn 1".
fanbutton 4 years ago
Wow, why make a salient point when you can just make yourself look retarted?
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
Well why post a retarded video if you can't take the heat?!!
fanbutton 4 years ago
If you make a point then I'll reply. Dribbling at me won't work.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
You know that's mighty funny coming from a dribbler!
fanbutton 4 years ago
Ow! You cut me deep!
Still no point I notice.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
Kubrick didn't direct "Capricorn 1". That was directed by Peter Hyams.
Do some RESEARCH next time.
thirdclass2006 4 years ago
lolzz, man these comments are hillarious!!! lmao
nardwardo1 4 years ago
Yup, they came out of the woodwork.
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
you said evolution is a conspiracy theory right? I totally agree with that. It's a rebellion against authority, just like you pointed out. Good job.
justinpeterson84 4 years ago
No I didn't, I agree with evolution.
What is it with this video and people making their own damn minds up without watching the thing?
ArgusEyes 4 years ago
I did watch it. Obviously you don't know what you said in your own video. Evolution is probably the biggest conspiracy theory ever created. Think about it.
justinpeterson84 4 years ago
watch the video, MAN LANDED ON MOON its 100% proof
bto4 4 years ago
Watch Capricorn 1, its 100% proof that we landed on Mars.
fanbutton 4 years ago
Well, I don't think you converted anyone. But it's cool that you make the effort! The guy asking where the mirrors are that we use to measure the distance to the moon. He's never gonna believe we went to the moon, though in all fairness, he may be joking!
Airbuzz 4 years ago
Very good comments. True skeptics are skeptical of even other skeptics. This is a good thing, and you are correct, the body of evidence is that man did go to the moon, and yes was very lucky to do it several times. Also, Apollo 10 is never mention by those who feel that we didn't go. Apollo 11 was the third trip.
bd048 5 years ago
this kids a fucking nerd, if we didnt land on the moon, then why the fuck are there mirrors on the moon that we measure it's distance with.
carliton50 5 years ago
Sorry, are you talking about me?
ArgusEyes 5 years ago
pretty much dude, and there's lots of evidence to prove we were on the moon dumbfuck.
carliton50 5 years ago
Right. Well, in this video I said we went to the moon. In this video (you know, the one you're replying to) I criticise moon landing conspiracies.
So do you want to explain to me what the fuck you're talking about.
ArgusEyes 5 years ago
It's said that the moon is in essence similar to the earth in its make up, it may even have been part of the earth once, why didn't they bring a bored 2m deep sample to tell us something interesting on its history instead of a few loose rocks? How un-scientific!Meteorites exist all over the earth, such samples are not uncommon.Humans like yourself are gullible and easily manipulated and convinced,the evidence is very flaky.
pezlo7 5 years ago
Humans like yourself!? Where the hell are you from mars?
There are more than 3 proofs. This video is not about proving the moon landing. But chew on this. Radio telemetry.
Hmm, I made a reply to kondoboy a while back but it seems that youtube has lost yet another one of my comments. Grr. So I shall ask you about the radio telemetry. The telemetry from the Apollo 11 capsule was tracked by many amateurs as well as the parkes observatory (see the dish).
ArgusEyes 5 years ago
They DID bring several core samples from 24 different locations going as deep as 3 meters into the soil. Examining these samples has revealed evidence of Sun's behaviour going back 500 million years!
And 'a few loose rocks'? I wouldn't exactly describe 382kg of rocks with those words. Do some research on the moon rocks you will find out that they are way too unique to fool any geologist who has ever studied them.
Renius125 5 years ago
Bearing in mind they were wearing nothing but a several layers of tin foil and polythene for protection in 200 degrees plus and minus temps in shade and light,getting showered by unearthly amounts of solar and space radiation with no atmosphere to protect them and experiencing a 6th of gravity for the 1st time.
pezlo7 5 years ago
Yes, 200 degrees *on the surface*. There is no air on the moon. Also, the missions took place during lunar morning when surface temperatures are not that high.
How much is 'unearthly amounts' and what makes you think any radiation astronauts would receive on the moon would be enough to prevent manned missions?
Renius125 5 years ago
The first man in orbit was achieved in 1961 and was Russian, the US supposedly walked on the moon in 69 which involves traveling an uncharted distance of approx 240,000 miles, boarding a mini craft and landing driving and messing about, getting back into the craft zipping back up to mother ship and returning to earth with no incident!
pezlo7 5 years ago
What is your point? Take some time to research Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. Lot of the stuff done in Apollo 11 had already been done in previous Apollo missions. Base work for Apollo was gained from Mercury and Gemini programs.
Renius125 5 years ago
With respect you are a deluded hypocrite. You claim to be a skeptic at the beginning of your video yet by the end your condemning them! The evidence is not overwhelming either.Your 3 solid proofs were seeing the rocket take off, leaving the earths atmosphere and the presentation of "moon rocks".The first two proofs involve leaving the earths orbit.
pezlo7 5 years ago
If you are true skeptic, you'll ask yourself why it's gonna take 55 years since the last moon mission to return. Also, why China and USA's projected timeline to reach the moon is identical, even though we did it so easily with 32KB computers in 1969.
kondoboy 5 years ago
What is this compelling evidence that you speak of? I mean sure there is a lot of data and pictures but they are all supplied by NASA. When you control everything in house of course you can provide compelling evidence, because the source is NASA.
The very fact that no manned mission besides apollo has gone beyond 350 is very telling. In addition, the lunar module was never tested for its landing capabilities, yet it worked in the first try.
kondoboy 5 years ago
A true skeptic demands independent confirmation of the moon landings. Apollo had none.
You bring up moon rocks. 90% of the supposed moon rocks that have been brought back have not been released to the public. The little sugar lump size samples they give out for independent review could have easily been retrieved through unmanned missions.
kondoboy 5 years ago
When one endlessly demands to be convinced in the face of compelling evidence, they are not a sceptic but a denier.
Yes, I suppose that they could have brought back the rocks. But you see, a claim like that requires evidence. You can't just keep on saying "They could have done this, they could have done that".
ArgusEyes 5 years ago
Also I dont think all so called conspiracy theory's should be lumped together under a cloak of psychological bias. Its easy to be intellectually dishonest on either side of the fence. e.g, Its a conspiracy theory therefore its value is less, than the official theory. Each one requires a critical objective analysis. Cheers!
invertedbeardthe2nd 5 years ago
Good video, something you may be interested in - Apparently Uri Gagarin was not the first man in space. He was the first successful russian cosmonaut in space. Others before him were not successful, and hence you do not hear about the efforts of these men.
invertedbeardthe2nd 5 years ago
Something to consider; the conspiracy theorists tend to pick on events that have gained a lot of public engagement.
You don't hear about hoax theories about the unmanned space probes that have been across our solar system.
In my view, the Hoax Believers simply pick on Apollo because of the attention it recieved. If they picked on, say, the Mariner 10 mission, its a good bet HBers would have a smaller audience.
When you do make another video, you may point that out.
thirdclass2006 5 years ago
Good point friend, all the other manned missions to the moon are hardly inspected by the conspiracy theorists.
ArgusEyes 5 years ago
I've heard all these arguments before. The majority of them come from analysing pictures. Pictures are not a perfect representation of reality, they are subject to photographic effects.
About the missing material.. Have you heard of Occam's razor? Basically it means "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one". Is it more reasonable to expect that nasa faked the moon landing and have destroyed the data, or that they are simply incompetent?
ArgusEyes 5 years ago
How bout this for a question-- Why are blueprints and design and development drawings of the machines involved, telemetry tapes, the original high quality video of the Apollo 11 Moonwalk, original tapes containing telemetry and video from the other five manned missions and other key documents that would help to validate the missions missing?
misswinkle121 5 years ago
The news that the tapes were missing broke publicly on August 5, 2006 when the printed and online versions of "The Sydney Morning Herald" published the story with the title "One giant blunder for mankind: how NASA lost moon pictures."
NASA is also looking for these tapes as the new Project Orion will carry out the same tasks as the original Apollo Command and Service Modules: "Get a team of astronauts to the moon and back safely" Why would this be neccesary today if it was already done?
misswinkle121 5 years ago
All the telemetry, biomed data etc had been transcribed from the telemetry tapes to either printed hard copy, audio reels, and videotape. The information contained on them is not missing per se. The original video is _not_ high quality, just cleaner (I defy you to explain how 320 lines 10fps is high quality).
Dstevenb 5 years ago
For your question about the blueprints;
The general blueprints are still around. Dedicated people saved them from the trash.
Precisely detailed blueprints that show how to make the machines aren't around because they aren't needed anymore. That's how the industry works; they don't archive blueprints for stuff they don't make anymore.
thirdclass2006 4 years ago
ok instead i will give you a documentary that is made a little better than the other trash on here hold on....
misswinkle121 5 years ago
youtubedotcom/watch?v=0OE4v26-7N8
youtubedotcom/watch?v=gJZbmYKwZqY
misswinkle121 5 years ago
Facts are Facts regardless of the gravity of the detail. If ONE question is valid concerning the missions and NASA would not like to address that makes me skeptic.
misswinkle121 5 years ago
None of the questions are valid though. Name one.
ArgusEyes 5 years ago
Just what kind of conspiracy-related material have you been looking into? Doesn't sound to me like you've heard a whole lot. Incidentally, I suggest you keep a lookout for my next MoonFaker project.
JarrahWhite 5 years ago
I think I'm going to make another video about this. Stay posted.
ArgusEyes 5 years ago