Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage

We can see the wires, people!

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• moon
• landing
• hoax
• wire
• wires
• footage
• astronauts
• cosmos
• space
• armstrong
• apollo
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• 16
• lie
• conspiracy

[TheFACTSRUS]

@Aeronauticalexplorer No one except every space agency in the world and their associated scientists, astronomers and astrophysicists, none of whom dispute the Apollo program. Your pathetic attempts to rewrite history to suit your socio-political agenda debunk themselves assclown.

[TheFACTSRUS]

@nameofthepen Congratulations! You are the most full-of-shit poster on YouTube today. Please do the world a favor and do not breed.

[NASACrooks]

@zambi007i

In this case there is no consideration of momentum ,power,force,or any other factor on falling down other than gravity.After they reach their height ,both objects falling unaided simply pulled by the gravity.

Well...unless of course your "astronaut" has some kind of mini rockets under his feet (In USA's cartoon culture everything is possible) to slow his fall...?

This actor is on a wire support,or Galileo was stupid.

Get educated.It will help you understand our comments.

[zambi007i]

@Aeronauticalexplorer well, that closes the theater, doesn't it? show's over, gen'men. pick up your cig butts and go home to sleep. please do see my comment to cnn911fakes about sand velocity and you'll get the point.

[zambi007i]

@CNN911Fakes exactly the basic point. if the sand mass does get its initial velocity at an angle then why would it have the same momentum gain as the astronaut? which means why would the sand mass fall down at the same rate -- s=ut+½gt²? imagine you throw a ball vertically up at 100㎧ and another one with the same velocity at 75°. which ball would you think land first? if you're confused, try this: w3.splung.com/content/sid/2/pa­ge/projectiles

[zambi007i]

@CNN911Fakes you pretty much ignore the basic camera optic "accidentals"! first you refer to 0.16 then you jump to 1.29. the flashes could be seen beginning 1.11. any flash subsequent to a metallic object being in motion (with the astronaut or cam pan) is only the result of multiple internal reflections inside the camera due the optical properties of glass (internal reflection). maybe you need to get your excitement toned down a bit and rationally analyze.

[Aeronauticalexplorer]

No more need for any debates 0:16 shows that the astronot falls much slower than the sand proving he is on a wire support. No further debate is valid. The proof is already there. Any claim that the NASA "moonlandings" were real is completely obliterated.

[CNN911Fakes]

@zambi007i You sure have explained your strawman theorires well.

Problem is, I refer only to the lower flashes beginning at 1:29 which are clearly behind the antenna.

If you can come up with a "non-wire" explanation that produces the flash behind the antenna, I am willing to consider it.

[CNN911Fakes]

@zambi007i Why would any sand at all go upward?

[zambi007i]

@CNN911Fakes the flash is obvius at 0:21 & 0:22. it's the flash of the metallic antenna on the backpack. the "wire" you see at 0:20 is due to the reflection of the light from the antenna falling on the cam lens - a flare or flash. of course, there are hundreds of other instances in other such apollo videos where you get to see the flashes.

try to get it this way: if nasa were so clever to hoax this, then they'd not be foolish enough to leave a wire to be seen!

[zambi007i]

@NASACrooks you should probably do a jump yourself standing on sand when there's no breeze. you'll definitely understand your wrong claim. i say this ∵ i've done it myself. the sand should fall quicker than the jumper because of lesser momentum gained during the push as also because of the angle given to its velocity. contrary to your belief, the sand should not get kicked up vertically, and does not!

using fun words won't make you intelligible or intelligent either!