Youtube comments of (@Hobbes746).

  1. We know it wasn’t alien signals. The signal consisted of all zeroes, i.e. no data at all.
    9
  2.  @tonynoaa3950  No, Earthrise is real, just like all of the other photos taken by the Apollo missions.
    6
  3. Anyone capable of critical thought would look at the evidence for and against the lunar landings, and see that the evidence for Apollo is solid, while the evidence that shows the landings were faked is nonexistent.
    6
  4. The range of a radio signal is determined by 4 variables: transmitter power, transmitter antenna gain, receiver antenna gain and receiver sensitivity. Improving any one of these will increase the range. So instead of building a powerful transmitter, we built better antennas on Earth. They use parabolic dishes with a diameter of 70 meters. The receivers are cooled to near absolute zero. This is enough that we can receive a signal sent by Voyager’s 12 W transmitter.
    6
  5. In 50 years, nobody has presented any evidence that shows the Apollo landings were faked.
    6
  6. Dumb is ignoring all of the evidence, and claiming the Apollo landings are fake.
    5
  7. They did in fact show us Earth from the moon on multiple occasions. Also many photos of Earth were made during the trip to/from the moon .
    5
  8. Your ignorance is showing.
    5
  9.  @AndrewMark-hl9hh  It was filmed on the moon. Despite the tons of evidence that prove this beyond doubt, dumb sheeple believe the landings were faked.
    4
  10. I guarantee that that’s nonsense.
    4
  11. No, we are watching footage made on the moon. We can measure how objects move in the video, and we find they are in 1/6 g gravity, not the 1 g we have on Earth. It is impossible to replicate those videos on Earth.
    4
  12.  @user-Rocket-Fest  Long before the first flight in space, radio engineers figured out that radio signals follow the inverse square law. Long before the first flight in space, they figured out which factors influence the distance at which a radio signal can be received. Marconi was sending radio signals across the Atlantic ocean in 1900. So by 1957, we had equations that allowed us to calculate the range for a given radio system. Every time we sent a spacecraft farther away, those equations turned out to be correct. There was no need to send a person far away to test this.
    4
  13. In the 1960s NASA ran twenty unmanned missions to the moon, and half of those failed. But each failure allowed them to improve subsequent missions. What we’re seeing now is the first missions by ISRO and JAXA. Spaceflight remains hard, and each organization has its own lessons to learn.
    4
  14.  @daryllect6659  You’re wrong. The evidence is in fact conclusive. In 50 years, nobody has presented a single shred of evidence that proves the Apollo landings were faked.
    4
  15. They have been telling the truth from the beginning: the Apollo landings are real. This is supported by a ton of evidence from many different sources.
    3
  16. Some people did 2 missions, so it’s 24 unique people.
    3
  17. We did go, as proven by a ton of evidence.
    3
  18. Apollo was enormously expensive. The USA was willing to pay that price to beat the Soviets, but has been unwilling to fund further missions at that level. Artemis is being run at 1/50 the funding level that Apollo had, so it’s taking a bit longer than Apollo did.
    3
  19.  @daryllect6659  This is not a “try”, it’s reality, supported by evidence and basic physics.
    3
  20.  @stanpikaliri1621  Your phone has no signal because there are obstacles between it and the cell tower. There are no obstacles in space. There’s nothing magical about the Voyager radio link: basic physics tells us we can send radio signals across these distances just by making the antenna larger.
    3
  21. The astronauts themselves.
    3
  22. Nope, the Apollo missions are verifiable reality.
    3
  23. Nope. Voyager 1 failed because one of the memory chips in one of its computers malfunctioned. This is not a software issue.
    3
  24. Nope. We have definitive proof that 6 Apollo missions landed on the moon.
    3
  25. No stars visible if you’re standing in sunlight. On Apollo 16, John Young stood in the shadow of the LM, looked up and waited for his eyes to accommodate. Then he could see stars.
    3
  26. Only an idiot doesn’t realize what that line is: that’s a local high point in the terrain. Everything above the line is a lot farther away than the terrain below the line.
    3
  27. “the moon landings were faked” is a lie and a deception. There is no evidence to support that claim.
    3
  28. They left the lunar rovers on the moon. There was no room for it in the LM ascent stage, and no need for it to be brought back .
    3
  29.  @narajuna  1. Start with the data supplied by the missions themselves. Ever since the missions, people all over the world have analyzed the photos and videos. Nobody’s found evidence of fakery. It’s not hard to e.g. measure how objects move in the Apollo videos. When you do that, you’ll find those videos were recorded in 1/6 g gravity, and in a vacuum. We cannot replicate 1/6 g on Earth, which proves those videos were not recorded on Earth. 2. Find the third party observations of the Apollo missions: astronomers and radio amateurs followed the missions and were able to verify that they went to the moon, instead of orbiting Earth. 3. Lunar orbiters made by 3 different countries have taken photos of the Apollo landing sites. you can compare these photos to the Apollo photos to see if they match. 4. If you have access to a powerful laser, you can ping the laser reflectors left by the Apollo missions.
    3
  30.  @StrangerTurk  We can prove they weren’t. Astronomers watched the spacecraft on their way to the moon. A studio can’t fake that. Radio engineers received Apollo radio signals directly form the moon. Studios can’t fake that. Studios can’t fake the 1/6 g we see in the Apollo videos either. They can’t fake the photos taken of the Apollo landing sites by spacecraft from India and China either. Your argument falls apart.
    3
  31. I can look up tonight and see satellites in the night sky, proving that space is real.
    3
  32. They did understand the data being sent to us. At first, the data consisted of all zeroes, i.e. no information at all. After a command was sent, we received a dump of the entire memory. Then they saw that part of the memory was corrupted, they found a way to wrk around that memory, and they restored the spacecraft to normal operation.
    3
  33. Voyager 1 is at 150 times the distance between the sun and Earth.
    3
  34. Number of lies NASA has told us: 0.
    3
  35. So funny that people think this is BS when there is no evidence to support that claim.
    3
  36. Funny how deniers like you never present any evidence for their claims.
    3
  37.  @narajuna  When the data is aligned with the truth of some proposition (or hypothesis), it becomes evidence. And much of the data we have on Apollo is aligned with the truth of the proposition that Apollo missions did land on the moon. As I outlined above, we have evidence that proves the reality of the Apollo missions.
    3
  38. Yes. The difference is small (less than a second, if I remember correctly).
    3
  39. Audio signals are sine waves. This is an alternating current: the signal is centered on 0 V. The higher the volume, the higher the voltage. So that sine wave has one half with a positive voltage, and one half with a negative voltage. Switching the wires flips these.
    2
  40. The only people who tell lies about the Apollo landings are the people who claim those landings were faked.
    2
  41. There are people who follow the evidence, and there are people who claim the moon landings were faked.
    2
  42. 12 men have walked on the moon.
    2
  43. Unlike you, some of us are curious about the universe. The Voyager data helps us understand how the solar system works.
    2
  44. Two.
    2
  45. The “third dude” was in Mission Control Houston. He managed the camera not by looking at the monitor, but by having his own countdown that accounted for the delay, and panning the camera up to coincide with the planned takeoff.
    2
  46. The only moment the flag moves is when the astronaut is pushing the flagpole into the lunar soil. That movement moves the flag.
    2
  47. It was filmed on the moon. Don’t be ridiculous.
    2
  48.  @kohararakelian5162  As I already said: we’ve known there is no dome for centuries, long before NASA was ever established. Anyone who has a telescope and a camera can measure the distance to the moon, the sun and the nearby stars, and confirm those distances are all different.
    2
  49.  @StrangerTurk  No. We have absolute proof that it wasn’t filmed in a studio here on Earth, but on the moon.
    2
  50. Yes, we’re sure. The BBC report is based on information published by NASA.
    2
  51.  @masesero2150  That makes no sense. 2 out of 135 Space Shuttle missions failed. 14 people died. None of those dead people were so essential that any manned flight was doomed once they had died.
    2
  52. They could do it 50 years ago because the nation was united in pursuing that goal. Now, NASA’s contractor (Boeing) is more interested in fleecing the government than in actually doing what they’re contracted to do.
    2
  53.  @daryllect6659  That’s not a belief, that is knowledge based on facts and evidence.
    2
  54. No obstacles in space.
    2
  55.  @user-Rocket-Fest  Any radio signal (in space, in our atmosphere) gets weaker: the signal strength goes with the inverse square of the distance. So the longer the distance, the larger your antenna has to be. NASA’s antennas are large enough to stay in contact with the Voyagers to a distance of 200 AU.
    2
  56. Yes. Voyager 1 has 6 science instruments that are still operational.
    2
  57.  @daryllect6659  That’s just one of many lines of evidence, and when we take all of the evidence into account, the only possible conclusion is that those spacecraft were manned.
    2
  58.  @becks78sbn1  The Taurus Littrow Valley is littered with craters that have created ridges. Independent observations have proven the Apollo 17 mission landed here, which means those photos are real.
    2
  59. No, the chips on Voyager 1 were not "malfunctioning for years". ONE memory chip malfunctioned in November, not years ago. That chip continued part of the programs for the FDS, which meant those programs were now incomplete. The solution was to move those 256 bytes of program to different parts of the memory. This was clearly and unambiguously a hardware issue: one chip failed.
    2
  60.  @papai-y3i  Tons of evidence prove that Apollo 17 landed on the moon. There is no evidence at all that supports your opinion.
    2
  61. Planting a flag on the moon: best human achievement of the 20th century.
    2
  62. We did launch better ones. The data from Voyager enabled us to build spacecraft that would study one planet in more detail for years: Galileo and Juno at Jupiter, and Cassini at Saturn. JHUAPL is working on a proposal for a new interstellar mission. The problem with those is the long time it takes to get to the interesting parts of the solar system. Even today, the fastest spacecraft we can build is only twice as fast as the Voyagers.
    2
  63.  @papai-y3i  Yes, sure. The astronauts placed the TV camera on a tripod and left it to run. The TV camera on the LRV could be operated remotely from Earth.
    2
  64. We don’t have science data yet, just engineering info. They’re working on getting science data as well.
    2
  65. That ‘battery’ weighs 50 kg and cost $100 million.
    2
  66. Nope. Just actual video and photos made by men on the moon.
    2
  67.  @daryllect6659  The ‘crater’ left by the lander is only a few centimeters deep: the small dust fragments are blown away by the engine exhaust. This creates the light-colored areas seen in the SELENE photos. The lunar surface consists of a thin layer of small dust particles, sitting on larger and larger chunks. Those large chunks are too heavy to be moved by the engine exhaust: the LM engine thrust is 1300 kg at touchdown, spread over an area of 2 square meters (using the diameter of the descent engine nozzle). That’s a pressure of 0.06 bar, or 60 grams per cm2.
    2
  68. The flag is moving only when the astronauts are working on it, wiggling the flag pole to get it into the ground.
    2
  69. A base is used because a. the Saturn V weighs 3000 tons, so it needs solid ground to stand on, and b. we need access to various points on the Saturn V during preparations for launch. The LM didn’t need a base: the astronauts could reach their cabin via a ladder, and there was no external personnel to work on the LM so all preparation on the LM had to be done before launching it from Earth. The LM also was light enough to land on unprepared ground.
    2
  70. Radio signals don’t travel well through solid obstacles, like the walls of your home. There are no obstacles in space. Still, we have to build really large antennas to receive signals from such a long distance: we use dish antennas with a diameter of 70 meters, with a receiver cooled to near absolute zero.
    2
  71.  @daryllect6659  There is no dust on the lander feet because there is no atmosphere on the moon. So the dust that’s picked up by the exhaust gases moves in a straight line away from the landing site. None of it ends up in a position where it can fall into the lander feet.
    2
  72.  @theeraphatsunthornwit6266  Artemis is being run at 1/25 of the annual budget that Apollo has. This means the development of the rockets, spacecraft etc. that took 8 years for Apollo, will take longer for Artemis. It does not mean Artemis is a failure.
    2
  73.  @theeraphatsunthornwit6266  I looked up the Apollo budget, adjusted for inflation, and looked up the Artemis budget.
    2
  74. The fact is that there is tons of flight footage, demonstrating you didn’t bother checking before posting.
    2
  75. Why would making people believe in a lie make Earth a better place?
    2
  76. Spaceflight is real. We have a ton of evidence that proves the Apollo missions landed on the moon.
    2
  77. That’s because you’ve been conned by charlatans who sell books where they claim the landings were faked. there is no actual evidence to support that claim.
    2
  78. Why should they lie like that?
    2
  79. We know what they saw on the moon because they extensively documented everything they saw on photo and video.
    2
  80.  @GraemeSmith-kd5eb  Nothing alleged about that. We have video that shows the rover being deployed, both here on Earth and on the moon. We have documentation that shows exactly how the mechanism worked.
    2
  81. After 50 years of thermal cycling, probably not.
    2
  82. Apollo Crater is an impact basin with a diameter of more than 500 km on the far side of the moon, nowhere near any of the Apollo landing sites. It is the intended target for Chang’e 6. If the Chinese can’t find a crater that large, the mission would be in big trouble. In reality though, they’re on track for landing in the basin. So, as usual, you’re not making sense.
    2
  83. ​ @narajuna  Again, you are confused. There is a crater named Apollo on the moon. This is NOT one of the Apollo landing sites! None of the Apollo missions landed anywhere near Apollo crater.
    2
  84. The LRVs were powered by silver-zinc batteries. This is all well-documented and easy to find.
    2
  85. You’re talking about the ionosphere, using the worst possible sources.
    2
  86. A nation of engineers, inventors and builders.
    2
  87.  @markriding1267  His family considers Gus’ death an accident, not a murder.
    2
  88.  @ДмитрийАлексеев-ы6к  You have no evidence. Every single claim made by the moon landing deniers turns out to be baseless. They’ve all been debunked. Meanwhile, we have a ton of evidence that proves the moon landings are real.
    2
  89.  @rockethead7  Also, it’s easier to deal with high temperatures when you are in the vacuum of space: when you reflect most of the sunlight away, your spacecraft won’t heat up.
    2
  90. My grandfather was flying remote-control aircraft 15 years before Apollo 11 landed on the moon. The camera on the LRV could be remotely controlled from Earth, and it could transmit its video signal directly to Earth.
    2
  91.  @narajuna  Still peddling nonsense, I see. Proof IS verifiable reality.
    2
  92. 0:40 the yellow Toyota is in ambulance livery, but not really used as an ambulance. In the last few years, doctors in general practice started using these to provide faster response when they get an emergency call.
    2
  93. NASA publishes the raw data from all of its science missions.
    2
  94. We have plenty of evidence that proves all these landings are real, and no evidence that any were faked.
    1
  95. That opinion is not based on evidence.
    1
  96. A politician appointed to lead NASA made a false statement.
    1
  97. That is incorrect. In all the time since the Apollo landings, nobody has presented any evidence that those missions were faked.
    1
  98. If you ignore the 382 kg brought back by the Apollo missions and the ~1 kg brought back by two Russian missions, sure.
    1
  99. It did not freefall, it had an engine malfunction at low altitude, and its control systems compensated as best they could.
    1
  100. Nope, they were telling the truth.
    1
  101. Incorrect. A ton of evidence proves the Apollo landings are real.
    1
  102. The US landed 6 manned missions on the moon, 50 years ago. The recent attempt by Intuitive Machines was a first attempt by that company, and they learned the lessons NASA learned in the 1960s: proper preparation prevents poor performance.
    1
  103. 382 kg of real lunar rock samples were brought back by the Apollo missions.
    1
  104.  @kingston163  12 men have walked on the moon, and more than 25 unmanned missions have successfully landed on the moon.
    1
  105.  @kingston163  That is incorrect. I can verify this myself.
    1
  106. We have a ton of evidence that proves the Apollo landings are real.
    1
  107. The whole world under Chinese rule? No thanks!
    1
  108. Bart Sibrel is a charlatan that’s been caught lying on multiple occasions. None of his arguments stand up to scrutiny.
    1
  109. 5:50 the trucks use air horn sirens. They are deafening.
    1
  110. 8:20 Lanesplitting is legal, although bikes and scooters are supposed to be on the right instead of the left. Maneuvering around stopped cars (like is happening here) is also legal, although I’d hesitate before doing that with a police car that has its lights flashing.
    1
  111. Stop lying about Apollo. We developed the necessary technology, then used that to make hardware capable of going to the moon. Then we decided to stop making that hardware, and focus on other things instead. The knowledge was retained (and can be found today in public archives).
    1
  112. Grissom was the victim of an accident. The conspiracy theory that he was murdered does not hold up to scrutiny.
    1
  113. The LRVs were not inflatable.
    1
  114.  @yoskarokuto3553  Verifiable reality. As usual, you have nothing. No evidence to support your claims.
    1
  115.  @NabiKaCartoonBanao  There is no evidence to support that claim.
    1
  116. If you want to know more about the British nuclear industry, the book ‘An atomic empire’ by CN Hill is a good source.
    1
  117.  @tomhankstomhanks2579  I have given you evidence. For a few thousand dollars in radio equipment, you can repeat those experiments.
    1
  118.  @tomhankstomhanks2579  Incorrect. 9 manned missions and hundreds of unmanned missions have left Earth orbit. Anyone can verify this: we left laser reflectors on the moon. Radio amateurs have received transmissions from spacecraft at Mars.
    1
  119. 12 people walked on the moon, 12 more orbited the moon.
    1
  120. The evidence says otherwise.
    1
  121. The suit consists of 15 layers. The second layer from the inside is the pressure layer. There’s 13 layers of protection on top of that.
    1
  122. t’s 2023, it’s time to face the truth: the only people lying about this are the moon landing deniers. In 50 years, no denier has presented a single shred of evidence for his claims.
    1
  123. The AGC used chips that contained two NOR gates each, so yeah, the Block 1 AGC used 4100 chips.
    1
  124. Voyager uses chips, not core memory.
    1
  125. The Voyagers use radioisotope thermoelectric generators: a block of Plutonium-238 produces a lot of heat. Peltier elements convert this directly to electricity. These can last a long time: Pu-238 has a half-life of 88 years, so after 88 years the block will produce half the heat it did at the beginning. The Peltier elements slowly degrade, so the Voyagers have about half the power left they originally had.
    1
  126.  @CaliSteve169  Look up tonight: you'll see satellites pass overhead. With simple tools, you can measure their altitude and speed. This confirms that the claims made by space agencies are correct: satellites really are flying at 8 km/s outside of our atmosphere.
    1
  127. Anyone can do simple experiments to measure Earth’s shape. Every time we do these experiments, we find that Earth is curved, not flat. Anyone can do simple experiments that prove gravity is a real force that acts on all matter. Anyone can look up at the night sky and see satellites pass overhead, proving that space is real and spaceflight is real. With a bit more effort, we can prove that the Apollo missions are real as well. IOW the only lies are the ones you fell for.
    1
  128. NASA personnel on Earth ‘repaired’ it by moving data from the corrupted memory chip to other parts of the memory.
    1
  129. If the manhole cover made it to space, yes. Sadly, that’s unlikely: Heat from atmospheric friction would have melted it before it exited the atmosphere.
    1
  130. Apollo cost $300 billion. “no trouble” ignores the vast amounts of trouble they had to get to the moon.
    1
  131. It won’t. It’s traveling slower than the Voyagers.
    1
  132. Using the LRV was safer than walking. It also allowed the astronauts to pack a lot more useful work into a single EVA.
    1
  133. ESA does not have "pictures of a distant planet with lights”. Bad actors who make clickbait articles and videos are making these false claims for money.
    1
  134. Incorrect, it has reached solar escape velocity.
    1
  135. Part of the memory was corrupted. That memory contained instructions for the computer. Bad instruction-> gibberish is transmitted. They fixed it by uploading those instructions to a different part of the memory.
    1
  136. Dark, with lots of stars. Not very different from a dark night on Earth.
    1
  137. The astronomer gave a correct explanation, so clearly she does understand the issue.
    1
  138.  @duileyah  No, that’s no what NASA’s chief said. And it’s not the truth. The “dark side” of the moon is the side of the moon that’s facing away from us. Until we started sending spacecraft to the moon, we could not see this side of the moon. The far side has 14 Earth days of sunlight followed by 14 Earth days of darkness, just like the near side of the moon. From the early 1960s, multiple spacecraft have orbited the moon and seen the “dark side”. The Lunar Orbiter program created the first complete map of the far side. The Apollo missions orbited the moon, so the Apollo crews all saw the far side of the moon. At the moment, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, Chandrayaan-2 and Chang’e 2 are all orbiting the moon and creating new, complete maps of the moon including its far side.
    1
  139. The information it was sending back was all zeroes, i.e. no data at all.
    1
  140.  @AdamWest-qp3yp  That’s not how scientific research works.
    1
  141. We know the Apollo videos were not made on a Hollywood set: the videos show they are in 1/6 g gravity, not the 1 g we get on Earth. It turns out to be impossible to fake this convincingly.
    1
  142. The separation video is probably from another mission (one of the early Saturn V test flights), most flights did not carry those cameras.
    1
  143.  @AdamWest-qp3yp  There’s no point in altering data. Sooner or later, another country will repeat the observations. This has already happened for the Moon (China and India are running moon-mapping missions similar to LRO), for Mars (USSR mapped Mars), and in astronomy (today’s best terrestrial telescopes have a resolution similar to Hubble), for example.
    1
  144.  @papai-y3i  Yes, I’m sure of that, because we have a ton of evidence from multiple independent sources that proves this beyond doubt.
    1
  145. The evidence says otherwise.
    1
  146.  @AdamWest-qp3yp  Nope. I know people who are part of some of these missions. Raw, unmodified data goes right into the public archive.
    1
  147.  @AdamWest-qp3yp  I don’t think that, I know that because I’ve downloaded and used data from several of those missions.
    1
  148. Nope. Just complicated and expensive.
    1
  149. 3 LRVs, 6 LM descent modules. You can see them in the photos of the landing sites made by LRO and Chandrayaan-2.
    1
  150. The explanation she gave is correct. The only mistake she made is that the broken component is one of the memory chips, not part of the processor.
    1
  151.  @timothywhieldon1971  I copied that sentence verbatim from JPL’s Voyager site, from the News page. Any alien that is close enough to modfiy one of the Voyagers, will have a transmitter that can reach us so there’s no need to reverse-engineer Voyager first.
    1
  152.  @timothywhieldon1971  Yes, I was wrong. From the Voyager News page: the TMU began transmitting a repeating pattern of ones and zeros as if it were “stuck.” A repeating pattern that did not make sense. Obviously not a first contact, but a malfunction.
    1
  153. It was sending all zeroes, i.e. no information at all.
    1
  154.  @kohararakelian5162  No, on several levels. NASA is an acronym, not a word. The Hebrew word ‘nasa’ means to lift up, not to deceive.
    1
  155. We know there is no dome. We’ve known this with certainty for hundreds of years: as soon as we were able to measure the distance to the stars and found they are all at different distances, it was clear there is no dome.
    1
  156. Chip = any integrated circuit. You have memory chips as well as microprocessor chips. In this case, the memory consisted of a series of chips, one of which is defective.
    1
  157.  @JohnDoe-np1mx  Pretty lazy, calling people who point out your mistakes “bots” instead of learning from them.
    1
  158.  @daryllect6659  Moon landing deniers never present evidence for their claims. That’s your problem: you prefer to believe baseless claims over claims that are supported by evidence.
    1
  159. The evidence says it did happen.
    1
  160. Nope, just another real mission.
    1
  161.  @TheWeedShop-r5r  You are claiming software should be able to predict the future, which is nonsense. This memory chip failed in November, probably because it was hit by a cosmic particle, i.e. a single atom traveling at a large fraction of the speed of light. This is completely unpredictable.
    1
  162.  @TheWeedShop-r5r  No amount of software maintenance can prevent electronic circuits from failing. You were claiming Voyager’s problem was due to an issue in the software that NASA had failed to spot for “decades”, which is not at all the case.
    1
  163. We have tons of evidence that proves all these landings are real.
    1
  164. The first step on the moon was recorded by a TV camera installed on the descent module, on the inside of a cover for a storage compartment. That cover could be opened from inside the LM. When the cover was open, the camera was pointing directly at the ladder so it could record the first steps.
    1
  165. Your suspicion is unfounded.
    1
  166. 56 years later and no government has been willing to spend the kind of money that was spent on Apollo.
    1
  167. There’s no way a sane adult, capable of evaluating evidence, believes the moon landings were faked. We have a ton of evidence that proves they are real, and no evidence at all that they were faked.
    1
  168. The evidence says otherwise.
    1
  169. That’s not the horizon, that is the top of the hill they landed on.
    1
  170. Before Apollo 11, NASA ran twenty unmanned missions to the moon, and half of those failed. But each failure allowed them to improve subsequent missions. What we’re seeing now is the first missions by ISRO and JAXA, not the twentieth.
    1
  171. None of those are actually “fishy”. There are solid explanations for each, the deniers just make up lies to deceive their audience.
    1
  172.  @CodingExpress  Find 'Apollo 15 lunar rover deployment, 1972’.
    1
  173. Yes, it fit in the LM. There are videos that show HOW it fit in the lander, too.
    1
  174. We landed for real. Plenty of evidence that proves this beyond any doubt.
    1
  175. In reality, we have abundant evidence that proves the Apollo landings are real.
    1
  176. The Apollo videos show they were in 1/6 g gravity. We still can’t simluate that convincingly on Earth today, let alone 50 years ago. That means the Apollo videos are real.
    1
  177. There’s nothing miraculous about the accuracy of the lunar missions. 1. we know exactly how the moon orbits Earth. We can calculate far in advance where it will be with absolute certainty. 2. because space is a vacuum, the movement of objects in space, like spacecraft, is predictable. When I run the Apollo SPS engine for 10 seconds, I know exactly how the speed of the CSM will change and in which direction it will fly. There is no wind to push it off course. 3. The spacecraft didn’t just fire its engines once and hoped for the best. During the flight, they had multiple opportunities for course corrections. The position and velocity vector of the spacecraft would be measured from the ground (and we can do speed measurements with an accuracy of about 1 mm/s these days), then we could calculate exactly which thrusters to fire how long to get rid of any deviation from the planned arrival point. Since the Apollo missions, we have launched thousands of satellites to exact orbits. We’ve sent two hundred spacecraft all over the solar systems, over distances up to billions of km. We sent a spacecraft that passed by Pluto exactly at the altitude we wanted, after a nine-year flight.
    1
  178.  @seanbeukman9563  You claim that “we can’t” repeat the landings is not based on facts. Apollo was the most expensive engineering program in history. It cost $300 billion in today’s money. Until 2017, nobody was willing to spend that kind of money. In 2017, a plan was hatched to return to the moon. But NASA’s budget was not increased for Artemis. So Artemis is being trickle-funded (1/25 the annual budget that Apollo had), which means it will take longer for the first Artemis landing on the moon than Apollo’s 8 years.
    1
  179.  @fiat2496  Common sense is to follow the evidence. And all of the evidence shows that the Apollo landings are real. It’s also well-documented why Apollo ended (money) and why there were no more manned lunar missions after that (again, money).
    1
  180.  @TRSF1RACING  Youtube does not allow people to post links. User Lunarmodule 5 posted a playlist: Apollo 8 Full Mission
    1
  181.  @TRSF1RACING  Youtube deletes posts with links. "Apollo 11 Full Mission “ is a playlist with tons of Apollo 11 video. Or use the search function.
    1
  182. In 1972, the Apollo program ended, and the production lines were dismantled. That is the only real loss. Knowledge was retained, obviously.
    1
  183. In fact, both the Apollo missions and Chandrayaan-3 are real. The Apollo videos show they are in an 1/6 g environment, which is impossible to fake on Earth, even today. And we have a ton of evidence from independent third parties that show the reality of these missions.
    1
  184. Recently, Boeing spent 8 years developing a new airliner. According to you, that must mean the 747 was fake.
    1
  185. We have a mountain of evidence that proves the Apollo landings are real. After Apollo, NASA’s budget was cut by 90%, making further manned lunar missions unaffordable.
    1
  186. In the 1960s, the US spent $250 billion to put men on the moon. Nobody else has been willing to spend that much.
    1
  187.  @tonynoaa3950  in 50 years, nobody has presented a single shred of evidence that indicates anything about the Apollo missions was faked. To the contrary: we are finding more and more evidence that shows the missions cannot be faked.
    1
  188. No, Aldrin has never claimed the moon landings were faked.
    1
  189. Smart people follow the evidence. And all of the evidence says the Apollo landings are real.
    1
  190. The evidence says we did, 6 times.
    1
  191.  @JoeRivermanSongwriter  Correct, no corrosion. Thermal cycling means the rover is exposed to big changes in temperature. Materials expand and contract at different rates when the temperature changes. So in anything made of a combination of materials, e.g. a printed circuit board, you get large forces pulling components apart. I suspect you’d have to completely replace the electrical system, and all moving parts with tight tolerances (wheel bearings, for instance) to get an LRV to run again.
    1
  192. No.
    1
  193. Foster is a crank. A simple spectroscopic observation of the moon tells us it’s made of solid rock. A plasma is a gas so hot its atoms are losing electrons. A gas that hot glows brightly. The moon does not produce light: this is obvious when you watch the new moon, or a lunar eclipse.
    1
  194. The recent landings are unmanned because those missions are much cheaper than a manned landing.
    1
  195. Why would se send a rover to an area of the moon that has already been explored? It’s much more useful to send missions to areas that we have not explored yet.
    1
  196. The Apollo landings are not propaganda. They left laser reflectors on the moon that anyone can use to verify those missions were there. Lunar orbiters from 4 different countries have photographed the Apollo landing sites and confirmed they look exactly as shown in the Apollo data. The Apollo videos turn out to be impossible to fake here on Earth.
    1
  197. 1. on the moon, the horizon is a lot closer than on Earth: 2 km instead of 5. 2. on the moon, there is no atmosphere. On Earth, an object a few kilometers away looks blurry due to our atmosphere. On the moon, that does not happen, so the far-away parts of the scenery appear sharp. This makes it difficult to estimate distances on the moon, making things look closer than they really are. 3. The moon is rocky terrain with tons of craters. Often, the astronauts are standing near a ridge, crater edge etc. so you can’t see most of the terrain.
    1
  198.  @Whitfield369  If you meant that, you shouldn’t have said it’s “all over the moon”.
    1
  199.  @yoskarokuto3553  And yet in all those years, nobody’s presented any evidence that shows the Apollo landings were faked. Every claim to this effect turns out to be a lie, disproven by evidence.
    1