Comments by "Willoughby Krenzteinburg" (@willoughbykrenzteinburg) on "" video.

  1. 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
  2. I think your space bar is broken.
    4
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. So you had a lapse in logic. Welcome back.
    3
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Are you boycotting punctuation?
    1
  10. 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
  11. Why?
    1