Comments by "Willoughby Krenzteinburg" (@willoughbykrenzteinburg) on "Free Documentary - History" channel.

  1. Jul 20, 1969 with Apollo 11 Nov 14, 1969 with Apollo 12 Feb 5, 1971 with Apollo 14 Jul 30, 1971 with Apollo 15 Apr 20, 1972 with Apollo 16 Dec 11, 1972 with Apollo 17
    6
  2. You'd just deny that mission, too. Your opinion on the matter is meaningless.
    5
  3. Radio waves are literally just a specific frequency range of light waves. If you don't think a radio signal can reach from the moon to Earth (and from Earth to the moon), then you should be equally perplexed how you can SEE the moon from Earth. Clearly light waves can easily reach the Earth from the moon. There's no reason to be confused as to radio waves (which is simply an invisible frequency range of light) can reach.
    5
  4. I can't tell what you are talking about. Generally speaking, all the shadows are cast in the same direction. If they appear to be falling in different directions, it is a matter of the terrain the shadow is falling on or the perspective of the camera. Sort of how railroad tracks will appear to converge if you stare down them. Obviously, the rails are parallel; it's just a matter of perspective. There is no reason for shadows to go in different directions. Hoaxers point to this and claim that multiple light sources must have been used - - which is why shadows appear to fall at different angles. The gigantic problem with this is that if there are multiple light sources, there would be multiple shadows. Each object wouldn't just cast one distinct shadow, but rather they would cast multiple shadows; one for each light source. One light isn't magically lighting only one object while a different light on the same scene magically lights a different object. That's just silly. There is only one light source - - and that light source is the sun.
    4
  5.  @jimestrem6010 The same can be said about deep sea divers. Are those all fake?
    4
  6.  @AA-ke5cu There's also some very nice close up pictures of things they left on the moon. They took them while they were there.
    4
  7. ....in a while finished it for ya
    4
  8. There is a difference between "can't" and "haven't".
    4
  9. It's not a debate among actual educated people. It's a debate in places like the comments section of Youtube. No serious person takes the claims that the Apollo missions were faked seriously. The people who believe the missions were faked have zero clout in the realm of space travel. They are just noise.
    4
  10. You people are amusing....
    4
  11. I think your space bar is broken.
    4
  12.  @victorkoval3783  There are thousands of excellent quality photographs of the landing sites, equipment, landers, rovers, etc. They exist and are easy to find. Taken from mere feet away by the astronauts while they were there standing right next to them. If you do not accept these photographs, there is no reason to expect you to accept any other photographs. You're just making noise for the sake of making noise. You're all idiots.
    3
  13. So you had a lapse in logic. Welcome back.
    3
  14. Take your phone out on a clear night and take a picture of the moon. Tell me if there are stars in that photograph......
    3
  15. pretty big sound stage Which one?
    3
  16.  @TRSF1RACING  I have no idea what you are trying to say.
    3
  17. Go out on a clear night with your phone and take a picture of the full moon. Post the photo showing the full moon - - properly exposed - - and stars. We will all wait...
    3
  18. They weren't going 24,000 mph the whole time. They slowed down all the way to the moon as Earth gravity was tugging on them the entire trip. Your calculations are based on a scenario where they travel a constant 24,000 mph the entire trip. That's not how space travel works. They also - - as someone has pointed out - - aren't traveling in a straight line. They are basically following an orbital arc - - so the distance is a LOT farther than 240,000 miles - - and that was just the speed they built up so that they reached the moon before the Earth pulled them back. By the time they reached the moon, they were going just a few thousand mph.
    3
  19. The microphone capturing the sound is not on the camera recording the footage; it is from the astronaut's own microphone. Sound travels through solid material just fine. If you had a door in space and mounted a microphone to that door, and then knocked on that door, the microphone would pick up that sound because those vibrations traveled through the door, up the mount, and into the camera's microphone. Same thing with the hammering of the pole on the moon.
    3
  20. This is a never ending rabbit hole if you're just going to reject that they are lunar rocks since we don't have anything to compare them to. If we had something to compare them to, how would we know THAT rock was from the moon. What did we compare THAT one to? And so on. It's a useless logical journey. There are other ways to determine that they are from the moon. Some have already explained some of those ways. Another way to tell is by the composition - rocks that form in Earth gravity have a composition consistent with Earth gravity. The lunar samples have a composition consistent with a rock that formed in lunar gravity.
    3
  21. @DrMaxPlank  1) It's a rocket engine; not a jet engine. 2) It's not going to create a crater. It does remove the regolitg from beneath and this is visible in many photographs.....if you bothered to look. 3) They had plenty of oxygen. If some utterly uneducated loser in his mom's basement could uncover this, tens of thousands of ACTUAL educated experts would bring this up as well.
    2
  22.  @Gibbo1  Then you would have passed your starting point multiple times.
    2
  23. What reaction do you expect from the astronauts from seeing the exact same stars you can see every night on a clear night? That said, astronauts have in fact commented on how many stars they could see while on the far side of the moon completely away from any ambient light. They noticed the stars. It's patently absurd to assume they didn't. If nothing else, if you had any knowledge of how these missions worked, you'd know that they - on several occasions - had to take sightings of stars in order to align the guidance platform so the computer knew which way it was pointing. Your comment serves no other purpose other than to just embarrass you. You have no clue what you're talking about. As for what we did with the experience, well for one, you're using it right now to read this comment.
    2
  24. In 1969, it would have been FAR easier to land on the moon with a human piloting the craft than to send an unmanned probe that successfully lands safely on the moon. So, the feat you obviously accept wholly would have been a FAR more impressive feat than what actually happened. That's kind of funny.
    2
  25.  @sawboneiomc8809  Arguments like this are idiotic. There's a legitimate reason you don't hear these sounds. But let's take a moment and assume - - for the sake of argument - - that the missions were all fake. Now, ask yourself the same question. Why don't you hear those sounds?
    2
  26. Why don't we have a permanent base on the summit of Mt. Everest? Does that mean nobody has ever climbed it?
    2
  27. I agree with everything you've said here except for the part where you say it never really happened.
    2
  28.  @geoffbirchall7552  There are several mountains of proof that man has done this. If you are unaware of this, then that is your fault for not being able to find the evidence you need. If you have actually seen all the evidence and still refuse to accept that we landed on the moon, then articulate what type of evidence would convince you that we landed on the moon. My guess is that you both have no idea how much evidence there is that man landed on the moon - - - - AND - - - - there is no amount of evidence that would convince you anyway. Attempting to convince you is a colossal waste of time because your denial of the moon landings has absolutely zilch to do with evidence. It's just your desire to deny the landings - - - which is fine because you are worthless in every way in the realm where it actually matters whether or not man landed on the moon. You're just pixels on a computer screen in the comments section of Youtube; nothing more.
    2
  29. If there were multiple light sources, everything would cast multiple shadows. One for each light source. That's not what you see. Each object casts one and only one shadow. There was only one light source (the sun). The difference in the angles of the shadows is a matter of perspective. This is common sense to most people; I guess not you...
    2
  30. Apollo 8 went to the moon and orbited. It didn't land. It was the first mission to orbit the moon. Apollo 11 was the first to LAND.
    2
  31. Well, to be fair, NASA didn't "allow" it on Apollo 8 either. It was a non-issue. They didn't even know they were going to do it - - - and today, NASA couldn't stop them if they wanted to anyway. What you're saying is nonsense.
    2
  32. To be more specific, star light is actually REALLY dim. The reason you don't see stars in the footage or photographs is the same as the reason you don't see stars if you stand in a bright room until your eyes adjust to that lighting - - and then walk outside. You won't see stars until your eyes adjust to the dark. In other words, your eyes are "set" to expose for a brightly lit room. The same concept applies to cameras. A camera has several settings which can manipulate how much light hits the film. In this case, the most important factor is shutter speed - or exposure time. In other words, how long is the film actually exposed to the scene letting light in to expose the film? For a brightly lit lunar surface, that's a lot of bright light. The film only needs to be exposed to that light for about 1/60th of a second in order for it to properly expose the film. For pinpoint pricks of starlight? You need at least 10 to 15 FULL SECONDS of exposure time for that light to "burn" the film enough to show up in that photograph. The problem is - there is also a brightly lit lunar surface there - - and if you expose the film to THAT light for 10-15 seconds when anything over about 1/60th of a second is too long, then you would have big problems. The photograph would be so terribly overexposed to light that it would just be a white blob. You STILL wouldn't see the stars because the light from the lunar surface would overwhelm the film and drown out any star light. For video specifically (it's actually still film, but same concept), it's just a display of still photographs in rapid succession. Something between 24 and 30 "photographs" per second. Also more commonly known as "frames". If you record "video", what you are actually doing is taking a series of photographs. If the camera is taking 30 photographs per second, then clearly, each individual photograph can be exposed to the scene for no longer than 1/30th of a second - because the camera has to move on to the next photo after 1/30th of a second, so it's not possible to expose each frame to the 15-20 full seconds necessary for star light to register on that frame. Ergo, stars don't show up on the "videos".
    2
  33. The thing that landed did not take off again. The lander was in two stages. The engine used to land was not used to take off again, and the stage housing that engine stayed on the moon. 100% of the time - people who make comments like yours questioning some aspect of the missions ultimately reveal their lack of understanding of how these missions actually worked. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE TIME. You're no exception.
    2
  34. You're using it right now....
    2
  35. To any reasonable person, it already HAS been proven. I've asked this of many, and I have never gotten an answer. What would you accept as proof they landed on the moon? What would that evidence look like? They recorded every radio transmission - all of which is available online to listen to. Days upon days upon days of audio. They had a live feed from the surface. They took film footage. They took thousands of photographs. They did experiments. They returned 842 pounds of rocks. They have since photographed the landing sites (multiple countries have). What exactly do you define as "proven" if this doesn't do it for you? What else do you need?
    1
  36.  @anthonymathews3872  You know that when you go to the doctor and get an X-ray, you are being subjected to radiation, right? Where is that two-inch thick slab of lead they are supposed to be using to protect you from that radiation?
    1
  37. rockethead7 is right. Consider you wanted to build an Apple II computer from scratch without borrowing parts from old computers. I mean - - entirely from scratch. The entire infrastructure that produced each and every part you would need just doesn't exist anymore. The infrastructure that produced each and every one of the thousands of components is gone. That doesn't mean we can't build computers today; we just can't build THAT computer today. It doesn't mean that computer never existed.
    1
  38. It was just as real as a sunrise on Earth is. If what you are saying is that the Earth isn't really "rising", but rather they are orbiting around the moon bringing the Earth into view, then yeah - it's not ACTUALLY the Earth rising. By the same logic, the sun isn't ACTUALLY rising on Earth either; it's the result of the Earth's rotation bringing the sun into view, so calling it a "sunrise" is just as much a misnomer as calling the Apollo 8 Earthrise....an Earthrise.
    1
  39. It would be pretty hard to get lost since you could just follow your footprints back.
    1
  40. Imagine not realizing that you made footprints all the way from the lander to where you are......
    1
  41.  @JohnLaMonte  As soon as one of you people reference the "power" or "strength" of a vacuum, it becomes immediately apparent that you don't actually understand how pressure differentials work. You expect the vacuum to cause the astronauts' suits, helmets, craft, etc. to implode - - because you are simply uneducated. The DIFFERENCE in pressure is what matters. The LOWEST the pressure can be is zero. The astronauts' suits were pressurized to about 3.7 psi (pounds per square inch). So the BIGGEST differential between the inside of the space suit and space itself possible is 3.7 psi. That's not enough to damage the suits or cause any danger whatsoever. There is a larger pressure differential created when you drop a can of coke.
    1
  42.  @miahsaint-georges  Dishonest comparison
    1
  43.  @jhoneduardogilortiz5731  what exactly do you think you are revealing?
    1
  44. Apollo 8 did not take a lunar module. They took something they called a 'lunar test article'. It was basically a non-operable piece of mass equivalent to what the lunar lander's mass would be. The ACTUAL lunar module wasn't ready to fly yet.
    1
  45.  @jimestrem6010 If a deep sea diver's suit malfunctions, he's dead. So are you saying there are no deep sea divers either?
    1
  46. You know how elements work, right? It's not like there are elements on the moon that don't exist on Earth. If we wanted to fake a lunar sample, we'd just put together those elements in their proper proportions and say, "Hey, this is a lunar sample". Someone else would ask if those samples have been exposed to an atmosphere to confirm that they originated in a vacuum. So - - - - show me the study of any lunar samples supposedly returned from the moon from any of the Apollo missions that say that those samples have been exposed to an atmosphere. You won't be able to. Just giving you a heads up.....
    1
  47. There is a program called Artemis. Artemis I has already flown. It was unmanned, orbited the moon and came back. Artemis II will fly a similar mission but with astronauts on board. Artemis III plans to land men on the moon for the first time since Apollo 17 in 1972.
    1
  48.  @rockethead7 Hadn't heard that. Bummer.
    1
  49. Are you boycotting punctuation?
    1
  50. Sound does not travel through a vacuum. If the source of the audio were a microphone 10 feet away from the astronaut banging his hammer, then you would hear no sound. However, the source of the audio is not a microphone 10 feet away; it's from the astronaut's own microphone - inside his suit - - attached to his suit, and sound travels through solids. The banging of the hammer simply traveled through the suit into the microphone. This is incredibly easy to understand. It's always fun when idiots on the internet think they have some revealing "gotcha" moment - - when in reality, they are merely revealing their own sheer and utter ignorance. Good job...
    1
  51. It appears you don't understand how capitalization works...
    1
  52. Also, when you use stage lights, the light gets dimmer the farther you get from it. This is a fundamental concept of physics. Light falls off. Quite predictably actually. There is something knows as the inverse square law of light falloff. This means that something twice as far away from a light source is 1/2² as bright (or 1/4th as bright). Something three times farther from the light source is 1/9th as bright. Something 10 times farther from the light source is 1/100th as bright. In ALL the scenes, all objects cast ONE and ONLY ONE shadow. It is not possible for multiple light sources to be used. There is rover footage where they drive THOUSANDS of yards or several miles even Uncut footage taken by a camera mounted on the rover. All objects casting one shadow.....and the scenes being absolutely uniformly lit. The only feasible light source that would be far enough away to negate the effects of the inverse square law of light falloff - - - - - and be bright enough to light the scenes so bright - - - - is the sun - 93 million miles away.
    1
  53. What experiment would you expect with water? Do you understand what happens to water in a vacuum? My guess : no.
    1
  54. Using all caps just makes you look like a lunatic. Nixon didn't talk to the astronauts by phone both ways. His phone was patched into the radio band the astronauts were using. Nixon was on a phone; the astronauts were using radio. The CIA had nothing to do with the lunar missions. If they left a camera on the moon facing Earth, would you suddenly accept the lunar missions? Nope. This is just nonsensical garbage that you think makes your argument stronger. It doesn't. It makes you look retarded....
    1
  55. Why?
    1