Comments by "TheFlat EarthTruth" (@TheWokeFlatEarthTruth) on "Free Documentary - History" channel.

  1.  @Mrdilligaf421  Your lack of evidence to back up your claim is no lie.
    16
  2. Nope, what you wrote is pure fantasy. Take care.
    14
  3.  @filthyusratus  Hi Christopher, hope that you are well. You wrote "point a telescope on to landing sites". There is no terrestrial telescope that has ever been built with the resolution to see objects that small on the lunar surface. However, various Apollo landing sites have been imaged, photographed and identified by several lunar probes and satellites in lunar orbit. For example China's lunar probe, Chang'e 2, which is capable of capturing lunar surface images with a resolution of up to 1.3 metres, spotted traces of the Apollo landing sites and the lunar Rover in 2010. The Japanese SELENE lunar probe obtained several photographs showing evidence of Moon landings and matched the terrain to Apollo footage and the ISRO (India) Chandrayaan-2 orbiter captured an image of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle descent stage. The orbiter's image of the Apollo landing site was released to the public in a presentation on September 3, 2021. In addition NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has also captured sharp clear images of the Apollo 12, 14 and 17 landing sites. Take care.
    8
  4. A child would at least try to give evidence to back up their claims. You give no evidence. You are less than a child. Take care.
    8
  5. For some strange reason space agencies do not plan their activities so as to pander to the claims of conspiracy theory believers.
    8
  6. (1) "No blast creator" Do you mean crater?? Why should just 3000lb of trust with the rocket engine cut some 2m above the lunar surface produce a blast crater?? (2) "leaving the landing foot pads so clean". For a start they weren't, dust is observed on the landing pads in several of the landings. Secondly, The lunar surface is a vacuum, dust will move away from the LM and not swirl or form clouds as on Earth. Do better research.
    7
  7. What studio has such a large size, such low gravity and zero atmospheric resistance? Take care.
    7
  8.  @JamBreadSpotify  Any actual evidence behind your claim?
    7
  9.  @cappy2282  The behaviour of the lunar dust in the hundreds of hours of Apollo footage shows no indication of atmospheric resistance. "table fans" can not overcome that issue. Take care.
    6
  10. The did go multiple times and few people would chose to vacation on a dry, sterile, airless rock. Take care.
    6
  11. " the lunar module that landed with 10,000 pounds of thrust didn’t move one grain of sand or regalith". 10,000 pounds of thrust was the Maximum thrust that the Decent Stage rocket engine produced. On landing this engine was throttled back to just under 3,000 pounds and the engine was cut some 2m above the surface. All 6 landings on the lunar surface were recorded with the 16mm camera from inside the Lunar Module and dust is clearly observed to be disturbed and commented on in ever single case. Take care.
    6
  12.  @sampson1980 "that little 4 legged 10 foil looking thing"... "and made it all the way back to earth".....Oops.......Basic knowledge fail here sampson my friend. Take care.
    6
  13. There is no telescope ever created that has the resolving power to detect the Apollo equipment from Earth. However, satellites in lunar orbit from 4 different countries have detected various Apollo landing sites and equipment on the lunar surface and matched the terrain to Apollo photographs. Take care.
    6
  14. (1) "To me the idea that some tinfoil piece of junk could land and takeoff and rendezvous - is just absurd". ....So then please outline using engineering, scientific and technical concepts what exactly is wrong with the Lunar Module that would prevent it carrying out its function . (2) "You can see the earth, but you can’t see any stars"...Starlight is much dimmer than the Earth and will not register on cameras with settings for bright, daytime conditions. This is basic photography knowledge.
    6
  15. Your lack of evidence is not fake though.
    6
  16. Pity that you do not have any actual evidence to back up your claim.
    6
  17. You mean the Apollo 11 post flight press briefing that took place after they spent some 3 weeks in quarantine yet they still smile, laugh and crack jokes with the reporters. Ever actually watched it yourself? Take care.
    6
  18. There were 9 manned trips to the moon with 6 successful manned landings. Each mission carried a range of cameras with them which were operated at various times by various astronauts and sometimes mounted on tripods , Lunar module or on LRV's. You will have to be a lot more specific with your question. Take care.
    6
  19.  @alvarocortez890  Again, no. A manned lunar mission was never easy or never cheap. Also do you understand the difference between "can't" doing something and choosing not to do it? Take care.
    6
  20. 9 times in just over 4 years with 6 successful landings and no, it was never easy. Take care.
    6
  21. (1) "Why not during the day"...All the Apollo landings took place during lunar daytime. (2) "Where did the camera come from"....Each Apollo mission took a ranges of cameras with them. (3) "such a short back drop of the pictures"...There isn't. The lunar landscape is pretty featureless so judging distances is not possible from photographs or footage. (4) " the camera being out there before Neil"...There wasn't. The Westinghouse TV camera that transmitted his first step was attached to the LM. Take care.
    6
  22. "the astronauts said there were no stars"..........A clarification is necessary here. What the Apollo 11 astronauts actually said in the post flight press conference was that they could not see stars while on the bright, daytime lunar surface or while looking directly at the Sun. This makes perfect logical sense. The Apollo 11 astronauts (like all Apollo astronauts) were able to see stars while on the night side of the moon. Take care.
    6
  23.  @stusue9733  Don't worry, neither does he.
    6
  24. Here are the words of Dr. James Van Allen himself, the man after whom the belts are named and the man who advised NASA during the Apollo Program: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." Dr. James A. Van Allen.
    6
  25. The only footage of any of the Lunar Modules landing on the lunar surface was take from inside the LM.
    6
  26.  @tonynoaa3950  It is interesting to note that moon landing deniers are good at making claims but never produce even the slightest scrap of evidence to back up these claims. Take care.
    5
  27.  @HenryDurth  Of course rockets follow a curved trajectory. How else would you expect them to get into an orbit? Take care.
    5
  28.  @cappy2282  "Couldn't u just throw a very light substance in the air and create the same effect". No. In an atmosphere such as on Earth such a substance would billow and form clouds as it encounters atmospheric resistance. There is no indication of atmospheric resistance in any of the many hours of Apollo Program footage. It was filmed in a vacuum. Take care.
    5
  29. So any actual evidence to back up your personal incredulity? Take care.
    5
  30.  @HenryDurth  Unfortunately what you suggest is at variance with observable reality for a number of reasons. (1) A stationary observer would see the angular size of the Sun vary hugely over the course of the day. However the Sun presents the same angular size of about 0.5 degrees for all observers. (2) Different observers, depending on their distance to the Sun would see the Sun at different angular sizes. However in reality the Sun presents the same angular size of about 0.5 degrees for all observers. (3) Different observers at different locations would see different faces of the Sun. However in reality all observers (while using the correct equipment such as solar filters) will see the same face of the Sun. (4) A Sun above the horizon could never appear to disappear below the horizon bottom first. This is simple geometry. (5) A Sun above the horizon would have to be visible to all observers at all times. It could not simply disappear. Take care
    5
  31. Seriously, not another that does not understand the difference between Heat Energy and Temperature? Do they not have schools in your country? Can you not access the internet to learn about things? Please do better.
    5
  32. "with the lebel (sic) of improvements in technology it would have been easy to get there"... What technology exactly are you referring to? Since the end of the Apollo Program who exactly was funding and manufacturing the technology to carry out a manned lunar mission? Take care.
    5
  33. Incorrect, mass and inertia still exist. Take care.
    5
  34. You wrote: "president of Netherlands"....For a start the Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy and has never had a president so clearly you have not actually bothered to check or do any critical thinking on this story that you were told. Take care.
    5
  35. "They ring the US president from the moon to earth on a land line"..........Does it really have to be explained to you that a phone call can be patched into a radio network?? "And loose reception"............Try attaching a giant 26m radio dish (or better still a 60m dish) to your phone and have direct line of sight to your target, preferably through a vacuum, and your reception should improve dramatically. Take care.
    5
  36. Another short claim from a moon-landing denier who will never produce any actual evidence to back it up. Take care.
    5
  37. "there wasn’t internet then we’ll not for the public yet they can beam from the moon".....Ever heard of radio waves??????
    5
  38. You have given no evidence to back up your claim and you never will. Take care.
    5
  39. "lost all the photos".......You mean the thousands of photos that are freely available all over the internet as well as in the National Archives and in high definition on the various NASA mission image galleries? Genius comment!!
    5
  40. Satellites in lunar orbit from 4 different countries, including China, have detected and verified the various Apollo landing sites exactly where they should be. Take care.
    5
  41. NASA funding during Apollo era peaked at close to 5% of all US federal spending and they had but one main goal. Today NASA get less than 0.49% of US federal spending and they have multiple missions and objectives. Take care.
    5
  42. If you are alleging a conspiracy then by definition you are a conspiracy theorist. Take care.
    5
  43. "the Apollo mission"......."the moon landing"......Someone who thinks that there was only one Apollo mission and only one moon landing might not be in the best position to comment on these issues. Take care.
    5
  44. Luck then that the Saturn V, Command Module or the LM did not need "automatic wind shield wipers". Take care.
    5
  45. I am pretty sure that radio/microwaves and the means to transmit and receive them did exist in the 1960's. Take care.
    5
  46. Nope, NASA is an acronym that stands for National Air & Space Administration. Why are you attempting to seek evidence in homophones????
    5
  47. "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon"....Isn't that where a known fraud, liar and convicted criminal claims that Apollo 11 was in Low Earth Orbit while at the same time showing video that contradicts this. Also claims that the Van Allen Belt's are impenetrable while showing a graphic that shows otherwise. Comedy gold. Take care.
    5
  48. Satellites and cameras in lunar orbit from the following organisations have spotted the various Apollo landing sites and equipment on the lunar surface exactly where they are supposed to be - JAXA, ISRO, CNSA, LRO/NASA/ASU. Take care.
    5
  49. The post Apollo 11 press conference where the 3 Apollo 11 astronauts smiled, laughed and cracked jokes with the reporters? Have you ever actually watched it yourself?
    5
  50. No doubt, you will never produce any evidence to back up your claim.
    5