Comments by "Kevin Skinner" (@kevinskinner4986) on "" video.

  1. The takeoff shot was done by the rover, which had a camera turret that could be controlled via remote (remote control via radio waves was invented in the 1890s, by the way). You can watch it turning around independently constantly in the later missions. Note that they only get one good follow out of three attempts. Also, it's way, way farther away than 20 feet. You can watch the camera zoom in and out beforehand. Try a couple hundred.
    7
  2. There's not a single scrap of evidence for this. It's an urban legend and the only single person claiming to have actually seen it for themselves is either an actress or doesn't remember the event because she forgets that the Earth has time zones and describes "staying up late" to watch something that happened at NOON in Australia.
    6
  3. Nobody. It was attached to a drop-down panel for storing the equipment that could be opened from inside.
    5
  4. Just as a reminder, remote control predates the moon landings by almost 75 years.
    5
  5. At the end of the day, the fact that you have to lie to justify your position proves that you know that they went. You just pretend not to because you think that rebelling against the truth makes you cool. It doesn't.
    4
  6. Well... yeah, since he DIDN'T say we'd never been. The hoaxers edited the clip to remove all of the rest of it where he talks about going back, blames their lack of return on money, and says they went several more times. But you'll just lie and pretend that he didn't. And by "very much alive", you mean they found a few people with similar names at the rough age group as well as a few siblings and claimed they were the same people despite needing facial and dental surgery to match, despite the statistical rate of having siblings being 80%, and despite being in professions the astronauts should not be able to competently perform. If they were still alive, they would have been treated like Witness Protection. They would have been given new identities, they would not be allowed allowed to have contact with their families because that's how the hoax gets immediately blown, and they would be put in jobs outside of the public eye they can ACTUALLY DO, not teach recorded ivy league level law courses in front of rooms full of strangers in subjects they have zero experience in. Also, I just want to be on record that if I were in charge of this hoax and they went "No, I want to be my own brother", I would have have immediately killed them for real to eliminate the loose ends. If the NASA freemason illuminati cult were as evil as you people claim, they'd have done the same in a heartbeat.
    4
  7. Bless your heart, you think that the "truth" movement actually tells the truth.
    4
  8. You are aware that Bart's a fraud and has been caught red-handed faking evidence right?
    4
  9.  @robertjohnson5838  His "faking the distance to the moon' video is deliberately edited to mute audio and remote details that disproved him. This includes skipping over shots of them filming without his trick.
    4
  10. It went like.... 3-4 feet. On Earth it'd probably go about 6 inches, especially at a mere 8 miles per hour.
    4
  11. It's amazing that hoaxers think people are too stupid to scroll down a day or two to find comments that don't. Lying much?
    4
  12. Who the hell would use metal pans in an oven? You'd never be able to take the food out, you'd burn your hand if you tried.
    4
  13.  @JosephLayden  ...... You mean the one where your side deliberately and blatantly lies about how "there's no room in the ship" and then gets really, really mad when you point out that you can watch them unpack the rover because they don't want you to know that there's equipment storage on the lower half? Your Pacer comment appears to be a blatant lie as well. As far as I can tell, Apollo 11 had no official car. So how many of those other "references" were made up as well?
    4
  14.  @JosephLayden  Wait. Wait wait wait wait wait. Hold on there Pinnochio. Apollo 11 was in 1969. The Pacer's run was 1975-1980. So Apollo 11 had an "official car" that DIDN'T EXIST? I found a plot hole in your story.
    4
  15.  @LennonBaksh  Just answer the question. If a person lives their entire life without having heard of God and Jesus are they still damned for not following a god they didn't know about? Yes. Or. No. The fact that you refuse to give a straight answer and have to hide behind scripture tells everything. If you said "I don't know" then at least that would be honesty There is no forgiveness for a person that didn't even know, is there? It is God's Plan that some people are damned from birth and God's Plan that they not get a chance at salvation. God chose from the day they were conceived to send them to hell. And that is more evil than anything Satan has ever done.
    4
  16. ..... you mean the video that proved that your "truth" movement was a sham? I'm guessing your fellow hoaxers didn't tell you that Bart got caught red-handed editing his "smoking gun" to remove and skip over parts of it that outright disproved him, including shots of them filming without his supposed trick, did they?
    4
  17. Have you done any research beyond repeating what the hoaxers tell you like a good little sheep? Objects FREEZE in the Thermosphere. It's too dilute for convection to occur. It doesn't matter how hot your gas is if there's not enough of it to transfer heat faster than every other point on the surface loses heat via radiation. Also the reason they're working on the belts (in a video to hype a successful test that happened almost ten years ago now) is because MODERN computer chips - the ones you use in everything your spoiled millennial brain can't function without - are WEAKER, not stronger, against radiation due to the side effects of circuit miniaturization.
    4
  18. You know... I had somebody try to claim there were "bubbles coming from the helmet" on the ISS videos. They got very mad at me when I said "your bubble is already visible in front of the helmet on the first frame of your clip. Why didn't you show the whole thing?" because they were lying about where it came from.
    4
  19.  @timparziale8762  So are you truly ignorant of all of the lies your "truth" movement has had to resort to, or you just high on copium?
    3
  20. A cheap tablet is also hundreds of times more sensitive to radiation, one of the inherent downsides to the integrated circuit miniaturization that runs our tech industry.
    3
  21.  @thevoiceofsnakeeyes  If it only took me two seconds to find that same bloody picture from TWENTY YEARS AGO that David Percy got caught red-handed cropping to hide that his shadows changed direction, WHY should I watch it in it's entirety? Especially given that the video has been ridiculed for being so lazy with their so-called "research" that they tried to analyze composited artwork (fully documented as artwork with a known creator) and pretend it was actual Apollo photographs. The bar has already been set so low that it's sitting on the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
    3
  22. I just want to make sure something about that "curtain rod" lander. Are you saying that NASA's brilliant plan is to pay off every single rocket designer on the planet for decades to not say anything rather than paying one single one to make something that looks "realistic"?
    3
  23.  @ProjectFrugal  So why did you pick 1972 and not 66-68, when it was more than double our current budget? Sure you realize that it was paid for in advance. You are aware that half of NASA's budget is currently spent on non-manned mission research and expenditures right?
    3
  24. Bart will never agree to any interview where he could actually be questioned with any amount of effort.
    3
  25. 1519-1522 - Magellan's crew sails around the world with 18 people surviving the entire trip. This is not attempted again until approximately 80 years later. 1911-1912: Roald Amundson and Robert Scott race to the South Pole. Amundson reaches the Pole first, while Scott reaches it second and dies on the return trip. The next team to make it there is Sir Edmund Hillary in 1958. Time between Scott and Hillary: 46 years. 1960 - Jacques Piccard and Lt. Don Walsh descend to the Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench, the deepest part of the ocean. This is not repeated until 2012 when James Cameron takes an IMAX camera down there. Time between first and second; 52 years.
    3
  26.  @T._Matthew_Phillips  You didn't answer my question. Would you have called any of those feats fake if you'd been around just a few years before they were repeated? Yes or No?
    3
  27. You..... do realize that Bart got caught red-handed editing his footage in that to remove details that disproved him over ten years ago, right? The idiot actually thought nobody would compare his version to NASA's
    3
  28. In order to colonize or mine the moon, you'd need technology far, far beyond simply landing on it for three days. You'd need long-term habitation, heavy industrial machinery, and bulk transport ships that dwarf those so far. And for what? Most of the minerals on the moon can be either mined or artificially created on Earth. Any resource that costs more to obtain than you could buy it for here is worthless. If the moon were an artififical base, it would need a purpose. They're not harvesting resources from Earth. If it were a military base, they're probably not fighting us, so why are they here instead of someplace more relevant? If it were a transportation hub, even amateur astronomers would have seen the ships coming and going If they're observing us, they don't need a giant artificial moon large enough to house trillions of people. They'd have maybe 20 dudes on a small rock with enough of a base for running their operation and that's about it and almost certainly wouldn't be there for thousands of years. I like to imagine we were chased away by some college interns with "ray guns" made from some hair dryers and LEDs. That or the artificial city's most likely extinct and we got chased away by an automated message from their answering machine.
    3
  29. The Van Allen Belts are beta radiation. Beta Radiation CREATES x-rays when it hits lead.
    3
  30. Isn't American Moon the one that got caught trying to pass off openly credited composite artwork as actual Apollo record photographs?
    3
  31. .... but they didn't use a 1969's car. They used a small go-cart that folds up like a Transformers action figure and shoved it in one of the equipment bays.
    3
  32. You're looking at hundreds of billions of dollars in initial investment You need to develop new ships capable of carrying more than three people and more importantly, can be used multiple times because Apollo can only be used ONCE. You're only going to be able to launch a few launches per year because you only have so many ships, and each one is going to need time-consuming inspections and maintenance after every single flight to make sure there is no damage to the heat shields or any other part of the ship that will cause a failure upon reentry or any other part of your mission. Not to mention being able to safely launch in weather. Your operational costs are going to be so high that 99% of the population cannot afford your services. They cannot afford their own weight in fuel. And if you have even a single accident out of 100 launches, you probably lose all of your future business because nobody else will trust you to keep you safe. Good luck getting anybody to insure you. If I wanted to lose money, I'd throw it off a bridge.
    3
  33. Two words "Doesn't exist"
    3
  34. Nobody. It was attached to the ship on a drop-down panel that could be opened from inside.
    3
  35. Baron was fired years before Apollo 1. He flooded the reporting bin with so many minor nuisances that they couldn't get REAL problems dealt with, then pissed off management when he published it all after they didn't take the measures he thought they should do. Again, after HE HIMSELF caused problems making it hard to identify actual issues vs peeling paint. Have you read Baron's testimony to Congress? It's embarrassing. He couldn't remember any of the details of any of his submissions, nothing he had was even admissible because it was 100% unsubstantiated hearsay (hearsay is NOT court admissible, by the way), and after Congress told him to stop wasting their time, he LIED TO CONGRESS and made up a fake conversation he had with one of the other witnesses (which they denied ever having) where they discussed "details of the accident" that blatantly contradicted physical evidence. The reality is Congress told Baron to f-off and the man that had a history of throwing temper tantrums when people didn't listen to him drove around the barrier in road rage.
    3
  36. The moon's tidal locking means that the Earth sits in one position in the sky and doesn't move. That place is almost straight up from most of the landing spots. You can see the camera on the rover pan waaaay up towards it a few times during Apollo 17
    3
  37. "The Apollo missions were just a poker bluff with the Soviet Union during the Cold War." ..... but the Soviets already knew about the deadly unpassable belts and all of the other details that would make it "impossible" so your chance of actually fooling them is 0%. You can't bluff if the opponent can see your marked cards.
    3
  38.  @blackhawk2302  I'm well aware, I should have put unpassable in sarcastic quotes.
    3
  39. So, have you watched any of the other press conferences? Armstrong has that same "depressed and nervous" behavior in the Gemini 8 conference, 3 years before.
    3
  40.  @LennonBaksh  So.... if objects did go to space and land on the moon.... then that proves that the Bible is wrong, correct?
    3
  41. A 36 year old that thinks you can do things without money? I've never heard a more unbelievable lie in all my life.
    3
  42. You do realize that fusion power DOESN'T WORK and is not expected to be commercially viable for another 30-50 years right? You also do realize that in order to actually harvest that, you'd need need heavy transport ships capable of carrying mass quantities, large numbers of workers, and heavy machinery capable of strip mining vast areas of land whereas Apollo could only land two people without enough supplies to build an outhouse. So you're investing several hundred billion dollars of investment into a fuel source YOU CAN'T CURRENTLY USE and which can be fabricated in a lab. But sure. Pocket calculator computing power is the real factor. Hang on, let me put put my cell phone with ten bajillion times the computing power on vibrate. Oh, it only moved about a foot. Guess all that fifty quintrillion times the computing power is not getting to the moon without a GIANT ROCKET.
    3
  43. Gregory, the boots have the "wrong boot print" because they wore overshoes on top of the feet that were part of the suit.
    3
  44. Um... Gemini and Apollo used different suits. The Apollo helmet was fixed, but Gemini's did in fact swivel. You can see this is photographs and interviews. It's YOUR SIDE that's lying. During the interview, they were asked TWO questions about the stars: whether they could be seen from the moon AND whether they could be seen through the solar corona despite the glare. Armstrong answerred that they could not be seen from the daytime side of the moon without their ship's optics, and he didn't remember what stars were visible while filming the solar corona. Collins responds (to the second question) that he didn't remember seeing any. That's not a contradiction or a different answer. That's a second opinion for "I don't remember".
    3
  45. Really? Becaue I though JFK was assassinated over aliens, and Vietnam, and the federal reserve, and all of those other things that people like to list as the Soup of the Day. With ten different motives and ten different suspects, the fact that your "truth" reads like a book of mad libs should be pretty good evidence that you're completely off track. It's going to be very interesting. When a conspiracy theorist dies and goes to heaven, they're going to ask God who killed JFK. When God says "Oswald", the conspiracy theorists will decry God as part of the hoax.
    2
  46. Shane, dust floats on Earth because the air around it holds it up. In a vacuum, it will settle IMMEDIATELY at the same speed that everything else falls because there's nothing holding it up. Also, mathematically, the Earth as seen from the moon would only be about 2 degrees wide. That's about the size of two dimes at arm's length. That's before the fact that wide angle lenses cause background objects to shrink.
    2
  47. I mean.... you can't even get the name right and you think you've actually done the real research?
    2
  48.  @yakov9542  Head's up, not only does the "faking the distance" trick not actually work (it doesn't account for the clouds and landmasses changing as the ship moves), the creator GOT CAUGHT editing his video to skip over shots of them filming without his trick.
    2
  49. And not a single rocket scientist says anything about all the obvious fake cardboard curtain rods blah blah blah. "But clearly they're all paid off to not lose their jobs" All of them, across the entire world. And NASA didn't pay one of them to design a realistic design so they'd only have to pay one person instead of thousands because.......?
    2
  50. Firefighting proximity suits can get up to 3,000F....
    2
  51. Kaysing started making up bogus claims about "Oh yeah, they totally tried a dozen times!" in a desperate attempt to be believed because people started asking that question while he was still alive.
    2
  52. Head's up, the first and second descents to the Marianas Trench, the deepest part of the ocean, were also 50 years apart. The second successful mission to the South Pole that actually survived was done by Sir Edmund Hillary, the man that conquered Mt Everest, 40 years after the first.
    2
  53. The Orion video is a hype video. They're probably exaggerating the problems a bit to make what they're doing seem more monumental than it actually is. That's how marketing works. By the way, the problem Orion is having with the Belts isn't radiation poisoning. It's keeping the MODERN computers from being damaged; all of those tiny computer chips are more sensitive to radiation, not less, and this problem gets worse the smaller you make them. Apollo 13 makes no sense to fake. The Idea that they were doing it to "reignite interest and steal more money" makes no sense when you realize that the money for the missions was paid in advance, not out of that year's budget, and to pull it off while maintaining the "even mission control didn't know it was faked" nonsense would be like herding cats and you'd basically need precognition because you have no clue what or when the grounds teams will come up with, whether it will match your premade fake data, or whether it creates a scenerio that's survivable. Unlike the hoax frauds at Aulis, NASA does not claim to have psychic powers. Head's up by the way, we know for fact that there's no film crew. The camera swings 360 degrees while they move it away from the ship. Nobody's there.
    2
  54.  @timparziale8762  Reality is a hell of a drug.
    2
  55.  @Mordecai88393  .... despite the fact that landline to satellite to landline was one of the first advancements of the Space Race and that LBJ, his predecessor, took the first Telstar call from the Vice President's Office? Hey Genius, you realize that civilian radio stations have had the ability to take a phone call and broadcast it over radio waves since the 1930s, right?
    2
  56. The hoaxers are lying to you. Adrin continues talking about needing to know why you stopped so that you can continue next time, blames it on needing more money to do new stuff instead of just repeat the old, and says they went several more times.
    2
  57. You know, I've heard a lot of people whine about the computer power. Not once, not one single time, have I seen a single one of you put on your big boy pants and make an estimate about what would actually be needed.
    2
  58. I mean.... the two technologies have nothing to do with one another so what's your point?
    2
  59. It was attached to the ship on a drop-down equipment storage panel that was opened from inside the ship.
    2
  60.  @nickrose8733  Add "Why does he not mention that David Percy, owner of Aulis, got cropping that very "non-parallel shadows" picture twenty years ago to hide that the picture shows the shadows bending on terrain, with the tips of the rocks in the lower right corner matching the LEM in the background."
    2
  61. Head's up, the creator of A Funny Thing has been caught red-handed lying about evidence many times. His "faking the distance' video is edited to skip over shots of them filming normally without his so-called trick.
    2
  62.  @T._Matthew_Phillips  I won't need to. You'll be on here complaining about "This is fake because they farted half a pitch too high".
    2
  63. Most likely they're from the same clip in the same mission and whoever made the video misidentified what they used.
    2
  64.  @duluxdog71  There's a known documentary where this happens. I believe it's one of the Apollo 16 ones. Nothing so Hidden I think if I remember the name? The clip of the "same rock on different days in different places" is actually the same location about seven minutes apart. They played the wrong clip. It's just sloppy editing
    2
  65. The "faking the distance' video was shown to be baloney ten years ago. Not only does the trick not actually work (if they were in orbit, we'd see the clouds outside moving), the creator got caught lying about the details of what was happening, including editing out parts of the footage he used where you could see them filming WITHOUT his trick. The "close earth" is just a window with a blue glare and a voice TELLING you that it's the Earth nearby. ----- The issue with the Van Allen Belts isn't the radiation poisoning. It's the fact that all of your modern computer equipment is many, many times weaker than Apollo-era parts because integrated circuits become weaker to radiation the smaller you make them. The ships this is designed for is also supposed to be in space much, much longer. Your fellow hoaxers throw temper tantrums when this is brought up. ----- WHY would we have moon bases? The ability to colonize the moon would require far, far, far greater technology than simply landing for three days, cost more to build than they're worth, and we don't have bases on the bottom of the ocean either and we were there first. ---- And yet not one of you ever even attempts to analyze the body language of the hoaxers, no matter how many lies they tell. I mean... the Australian Coke Bottle lady straight-up forgets that her story needs to actually take place in Australia. You'd think she should be telegraphing like she's directing traffic. ---- Fun fact, by the way, Armstrong's parrot comment is a misquote of a line by Wilbur Wright, one of the inventors of the airplane, who was asked to speak at a party and gave a one-liner that translates to "Screw you. I hate giving speeches". ----------- There is no ambient temperature in a vacuum. It takes considerable time to heat up and cool down, not "I walked behind a rock and now it's freezing." Also, they were never there at night and 250F is nowhere close to what a proximity suit for firefighting and working in a kiln is designed for. Try 2-3000F. Just so you're aware, radiant heat sources are the EASIEST form of heat to deal with because you can reflect it. By the way, it's about the same temperature range in orbit. ---------- The "bubbles" that aren't round and which don't behave like bubbles? Probably ice shards.
    2
  66.  @truthquest1194  Okay. Bart lied about the footage being never before seen footage that was intended for editing and playback later. The footage he used was from the live scheduled broadcast, meaning EVERYBODY saw it. Bart tried to pretend that they were lying about being against the window while really filming across the cabin. He edited out the part where both NASA and the astronauts outright state they are moving away from the window and you can watch them do so. The only person on this planet claiming that they were supposed to have been against the window when the lights came on is Bart himself. Bart lied about the astronauts not knowing they were filming, despite the fact that they are talking about the picture quality the entire bloody time. And the footage of the astronauts filming without his so-called trick is not only BEFORE his "faking the distance" video by several hours (meaning they must have left and come back), but is within SECONDS of clips Bart himself used. there's no possible way he didn't know about it unless he didn't even watch the footage he used. If you want to see it side-by-side with Bart's video, you can search Addendum: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon on GreaterSapien's channel. Oh, and by the way, Bart knows he's lying. He was confronted abiout this a long time ago. He shut off comments on his Youtube channel so people couldn't call him out and continued peddling his lies. After all, the truth won't make him rich. The blue glare is just the window being tinted because there's a bright blue object that direction, possibly additionally tinted by the UV and infrared coating on the window. If you continue watching, ALL of the windows have glare, even the ones facing away. Again, the trick DOES NOT WORK. It requires willingly ignoring the fact that they're supposed to be in MOVING VEHICLE. No mattter how much you try and crop it, you cannot hide the fact that the ship needs to be moving at more than 17,000 miles per hour to stay in orbit, many times faster than the Earth's rotation. If the astronauts were actaully in orbit, we would see entire oceans or continents pass by. And no, they cannot be in geosynchronous orbit. The altitude where the orbital speed matches the Earth's rotation is INSIDE the Van Allen Belts, which are supposed to be the entire reason for the hoax in the first place. You want to see what that trick would look like? Go take a look out the side window of your car. I'll respond more later. I have a migraine right now.
    2
  67. And yet they did nothing about Aldrin "confessing" live not once, but twice. Hmmm....
    2
  68. 8 miles per hour is "recklessly"? That's half the speed of a school zone.
    2
  69.  @demounit2505  At a speed that bumper cars would laugh at
    2
  70. Not only does the trick not actually work, as it cannot hide the movement of the ship as it.. you know... orbits, the creator got caught editing out sections of the footage of them filming normally without his so-called trick over ten years ago.
    2
  71. Val, the C is a hair of some sort on the print that got copied during duplication. That's why it only appears in certain versions of that photograph, doesn't appear in any versions of other photographs with the same rock, and why it has a shadow when you zoom in on it.
    2
  72. The interview? it's a fake. It has references to events after Kubrick's death.
    2
  73. Speed around recklessly? The rover has top speed of only about 8 miles per hour. As a reminder, the speed limit in a school zone is 15.
    2
  74.  @gervasebarnes  .... why would they have to re-pressurize to change films? The film is in preloaded magazines. They don't have to open the camera up. It snaps into the camera like a video game cartridge. I'm pretty sure I mentioned this 30 posts ago. You chose not to listen didn't you? Also, for the love of fucking god, stop with the "no stars". Stars are extremely dim to cameras require longer exposure times than brightly lit objects do to appear on film. If they were visible, everything in the foreground would be overexposed into a blinding blur. They don't appear in properly exposed pictures of the New York City skyline. They don't appear in properly exposed pictures of the moon taken from Earth. They are most certainly not going to appear in brightly lit photographs taken in broad daylight.
    2
  75.  @gervasebarnes  You are not winning here. You need to bring new material. These are the same claims that have been retread a thousand times. You've worn a hole in the floor to shame the Marianas Trench.
    2
  76. That's not the rock given to the queen. It's a rock that was donated from the private collection of an ex-Prime Minister who receieved it a year before the moon rocks were actually handed out and which his family didn't have appraised. "Hey, this rock has nothing to do with NASA" Conspiracy Sheep: "Who cares, blame them anyways"
    2
  77.  @jeremybaity7002  56 million a day would take 6.3 years to reach the 130 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation) that Apollo cost, and NASA only spends about 50% of its budget on manned spaceflight.
    2
  78. Bart was "assaulted" because he repeatedly harassed the astronauts, called them hundreds of miles out of their way by lying about who he was, tried to physically prevent them from leaving until the hotel staff kicked him, and then chased him through the street insulting him and poking him with the Bible. He also followed Buzz back onto the doorstep of the hotel and cornered him in the doorway. Returning to a business that kicked you out is trespassing and grounds for the hotel and/or Buzz to call the police.
    2
  79.  @busterhikney6936  ...... very convenient to leave a large heavy weight behind after it's no longer needed and which they have zero use for on Earth?
    2
  80.  @busterhikney6936  I mean.... 60-100 pounds on the moon's still pretty heavy when your ship needs to be as light as possible to get off the rock. Maybe they could make it a bit lighter if they ditch those manual windows that don't exist?
    2
  81. You mean the movies that use CGI that would melt 1960s computers into slag trying to render even a single second of it? You want to see what early CGI looked like? Go watch Tron and remember that the fact that they weren't even nominated for the Oscar for special effects because "Computer graphics aren't real special effects" was considered one of the biggest snubs in Academy history (though to be fair, it would have been against ET and Bladerunner).
    2
  82. Just making sure, you do realize that there are different types of radiation, right? The Van Allen Belts are primarily alpha and beta radiation. Alpha can be blocked with paper and can barely get through your skin. It is of little concern unless you eat it. Beta is industrially shielded with low-density materials such as aluminum and plastic because it CREATES secondary x-rays when it hits heavy metals.
    2
  83. You.... are aware that the maker of that video got caught red-handed faking evidence right?
    2
  84. Okay: the Bible is wrong.
    2
  85. Fact: the return to the South Pole and the return to the Marianas Trench were almost as long Fact. The "petrified wood" was not a moon rock given to the global leaders. It was a completely unrelated rock given by unrelated people that was ASSUMED to be a moon rock based on when it was received - despite not resembling the other samples in the slightest and being received a year before anybody else got one - and then donated without being appraised.
    2
  86. Kaysing basically came out at one point and outright stated that he started the moon landing hoax movement not because he genuinely believed it, but because he and his drinking buddies wanted to create the biggest scandal they could come up with to get back at the government for Vietnam. He also couldn't keep his story straight and tried to claim at one point that it was "satire" until "his publisher got threatened" - so by his own admission, he published it as a lie.
    2
  87. Dust doesn't float in a vacuum. Without air resistance holding it up, it will IMMEDIATELY fall back to the ground and objects in a vacuum fall at the same speed regardless of mass.
    2
  88. The walls, floors, and ceiling of your house are blocking your cell signal. There are no walls between the Earth and the moon.
    2
  89. Just making sure, you do realize that Bart Sibrel got caught red-handed faking evidence over ten years ago because he was so brain dead stupid that nobody would check, right?
    2
  90.  @Globeisahoaxx  Then tell your leaders to stop being frauds. You won't though. You'd sooner Judas out Jesus than criticize them.
    2
  91.  @Globeisahoaxx  By the way, you do realize that Bart Sibrel's "proof", if true, DISPROVES FLAT EARTH right? Why the fuck are you pushing a person who's claim is that the astronauts are in fact in ORBIT, that place you claim is faked?
    2
  92. The issue with the Van Allen belts has nothing to do with their ability in the 60s. It's a NEW problem exacerbated by the progress of technology Modern computers do not use the same types of hardware than Apollo-era computers used. They use superconductive integrated circuits that are many, many times WEAKER, not stronger, against radiation because all of those itty bitty tiny parts are much easier to damage and corrupt. Radiation protection for components is a difficult and expensive process that needs constant updating because each generation of components is more sensitive than the last and progresses faster than the technology to protect it does. Thought exercise for you. Radiation hardening works by creating duplicate circuits so that if one is damaged, the other still functions. What happens once your chips become so small and compact that there's no room to put the redundant parts?
    2
  93. Profitable tourism? Are you high? Apollo cost about 130 billion dollars to put 12 people on the moon, and in order to make a tourism industry, you're going to need NEW ships capable of holding more than 3 people, stocked with the latest technology, plus the cost of building any new facilities. Let's suppose NASA charges 50 million dollars per ticket and can hold 10 passengers. That's 500 million per launch, and a minimum of several hundred million dollars PER LAUNCH in fuel, upkeep and expenditures, especially since you'll need new rockets for every single launch because they can only be used once. How many trips will you need to make back a 200 million dollar initial investment. ...... what? You didn't think that YOU would have been able to get a ticket right? You can't afford your own cost in fuel. The only way you'd get on that ship is if you sell yourself and go as some rich person's personal slave.
    2
  94.  @pearlcahoon3484  Radio signals travel at the speed of light. It's about a second and a half delay one way at that distance. Anything longer is your hardware doing data conversions and other junk.
    2
  95. Poor, poor conspiracy sheep. Too blinded by your ego to asnwer the simple question of "Why is the mission named after a term that hadn't been invented yet?"
    2
  96.  @sandwichman2247  Can't answer, can you? Are you unable or unwilling to do so?
    2
  97.  @JosephLayden  As opposed to all of the other changes to it? Changing the car brand seems pretty minor unless it's a whodunnit where the car brand is a relevant clue. Probably just got paid AMC to market their car.
    2
  98.  @JosephLayden  I've seen these claims before. I wasn't impressed then. "They changed the room number to 237 because that's the distance to the moon" But the moon 239,000, not 237. Your logic is wrong. "Then it's... er..... it's the number of the sound stage they were on!" And you have no proof of this. The reality is that the room number was changed because the hotel used for some of the shots feared that using a number the hotel actually has would result in loss of sales if squeamish visitors refused to stay in rooms associated with the movie. By the way, Stephen King saw the Apollo Shining videos. He HATES Kubrick's movie, and even he thinks the conspiracy claims were the biggest bunch of bullshit he ever saw.
    2
  99.  @dansv1  Some of them at least. Youtube's comment system broke sometime in the spring so like a third of comments just don't show up to anybody else.
    2
  100. That's not actually the exterior wall of the ship. It's insulation wrapped around the ship's metal hull.
    2
  101. And yet people continually line up to kiss the asses of the hoaxers that have been repeatedly caught lying about their evidence.
    2
  102.  @LennonBaksh  So.... do children that are born in non-Christian countries that die young before having a chance to convert go to hell?
    2
  103.  @LennonBaksh  So. What happens if they reach the age of being accountable without having gained enough information to convert because information is not readily available or spread in their culture? Did God send billions of people to hell for not worshiping a god they'd never even heard of because God was too lazy to send prophets to Asia or the Pacific or Australia or the Americas for thousands of years?
    2
  104.  @LennonBaksh  You didn't answer my qu8estion. I'm not asking about people hiding their religion. I'm asking the fate of people that do not know or prevented from converting. All of the native americans who lived and died before Europeans arrived. Were they given a different judgement? Or did Jesus laugh as they burned for not knowing about him after he deliberately chose not to reveal himself for 1500 years? Don't pretend you're some repressed people with a big boo hoo. The instant you seized power, you turned the sword around and spent centuries arresting people for worshiping other gods and executing children for using "Satanic" magic that doesn't exist. Your hands are just as bloody as everybody else's.
    2
  105. Dust clouds don't form in a vacuum. Without air resistance, any dust that's kicked up will simply move outwards away from the ship at high speed so the likelihood of actually landing on the pads is extremely low.
    2
  106.  @michaelclark6283  Michael, your more powerful cell phone would be bricked before it even reaches the Belts. The technology to make those super fast super tiny chips makes electronics WEAKER, not stronger, to both radiation and static electricity and this gets worse the smaller they get. So no, it wouldn't be.
    2
  107. I'm not sure what you mean "no lag". Nixon talks immediately because his words are being recorded on Earth, not when they reach the moon, but the astronauts take 4-8 seconds for them to respond. You have WATCHED the footage right? And didn't just take the lying hoaxers' word on it?
    2
  108. Have you seen the rest of that video where he continues to talking, clearly indicates that he's talking about going back, blames it on money, and says they went 2-3 more times?
    2
  109.  @johnwhiting6663  John.... the moon is tidal locked. This means that instead of crossing the sky like the moon does on Earth, the Earth sits in one place in the sky and never moves. A camera attached to somebody's chest will never see an object that's 80 degrees above the horizon unless the cameraman's doing the limbo.
    2
  110. Also, just making sure, you do realize that by calling it Mission: Impossible, you are admitting that they SUCCEEDED, right? Mission: Impossible (at least the original TV show, not the bad movies) is not about missions that are actually impossible. It's about taking extremely difficult missions and pulling them off against all odds.
    2
  111. George, there are parts in the footage where the astronauts walk right up to that "front screen projection line" and disappear behind it because it's not a screen. It's a line where the ground dips. You can see thousands of these lines driving through rural Pennsylvania because every hill creates one. Also, front screen projection works by filming a screen through a one-way mirror that's placed at 45 degreee angle. How exaclty does this work with all of the footage where the camera is moved or turns around, which happens on most of the missions? A braindead sloth should see that your "projection" isn't doing anything if the camera is facing away from your screen.
    2
  112. What wind? The clips the hoaxers show of it "waving" are while or directly after they were touching it and moving the pole around in their hands. The rest of the time it just sits there with some wrinkles hanging from a rod through the top like a shower curtain.
    1
  113.  @johnboy1973  There are zero instances of the flag waving on its own on Apollo 11. Zero. If he's 2M away, then it would immediately after letting go.
    1
  114. Considering that Bart's been caught fabricating evidence inventing fake "whistleblowers" for twenty years, and has apparently been going around pretending that he was "drugged" and "kidnapped" just like Bill Kaysing did after people started heckling him about "Why didn't the government shut you up decades ago", what the fuck makes you think this "confession" isn't an actor?
    1
  115. You can bring your own oxidizer with you and mix it into your fuel. That's why black powder, which contains potassium nitrate, burns in a vacuum.
    1
  116. Considering that several of NASA's rocks have been retrieved from the black market and illegal private collections selling for millions of dollars, wouldn't the obvious assumption be... you know... thieves? One of the Goodwill rocks was never even delivered. It got stolen by the guy that was supposed to present it.
    1
  117. First of all, no pictures will stop anybody. They'll just claim the new pictures are fake too. Second, the restriction on a telescope isn't distance. They're limited by the angular size that an object takes up at that distance - how many angles across they are. All of those distant objects? They're MASSIVE.
    1
  118. Okay.... and ignoring the fact that it's decades later and they're all at the age where memory loss becomes common, it is not unlikely they don't know much about them. It's not their job to figure them out. They're nothing but one of many obstacles that the science nerds on the ground are responsible for.
    1
  119.  @mikeh3441  That's been the speculation.
    1
  120. Why don't any of you cowards grow some balls and tell Dubay to accept the challenges he's already received first Poor little boy wetting his pullups because he knows that if he raises his voice to his great leader, he'll be banned and called a shill.
    1
  121. I mean... there's billions of planets in this galaxy alone. We're probably not the only ones that do.
    1
  122. Just as a reminder, "Sheeple" was popularized by a con artist that got chased out of the UFO circle for fabricating "classified documents".
    1
  123. Just as a head's up, the hoax parallax analysis is sketchy as fuck. Aulis's article, which is written by a fictional "scientist" that doesn't actually exist with bogus credentials, by the way, uses formulae that are incompatible with the lens the camera used and manually flubs his photo editing until it matches the results he wants. This means, of course, that even if all of the math weren't automatically wrong, you can't reproduce his results. The hoax video makers know that the diverging shadows is full of shit, by the way. That photograph of the rocks and the LEM American Moon uses? David Percy, one of the former big hoax video makers and owner of Aulis, got caught cropping that photograph twenty years ago because you could see the rocks in the lower right corner had shadows that changed direction to match the LEM in the background.
    1
  124. So do you believe that China is sending psychic spies to pry through your brain?
    1
  125. Nobody talks about that has-been anymore. The pro-Apollo video makers started ignoring him ten years ago due to conduct that should have gotten him permanently banned by Google's legal department. In case you didn't hear, the two-year-old of the Apollo hoax couldn't handle being debunked every other week and so because banning his critics from his channel didn't stop them from making from making debunking videos, threw the biggest temper tantrum in the history of Youtube and around to his biggest critics' accounts and flagged all of their videos with false and abusive copyright and harassment strikes in a deliberate attempt to get their accounts deleted by Youtube's reporting bot. Waaaah, Waaaaah, Waaaaah, nobody's allowed to debunk me! Waaaaaaaah. By the way, DMCA claims are made under oath. Nothing says trustworthy like perjury.
    1
  126. Um... after Apollo, NASA's budget was driven into the ground.
    1
  127. First of all, the astronauts were asked TWO questions: whether the stars could be seen from the moon, and whether they could be seen through the solar corona despite the glare in reference to a set of photographs they took. Armstrong straight-up says the stars were NOT visible from the daytime side of the moon. The "can't recall" was in response to the solar corona. The Earth would only look huge if you were teleported there and only in relation to the size the moon normally looks. The astronauts watched it slowly shrink smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller in the windows as they moved away from it. It would look TINY from the moon. If you went around wasting pictures on the Earth and other things because they looked pretty, you'd probably get fired when you got back. The goal isn't to take pretty pictures. It's to take large numbers of pictures of the moon, the thing they are spending a fortune on so that they can be studied. They work for scientists, not Parks and Recreation. There's not a whole lot to be gained from pictures of the Earth from the moon. Any actual study would be done from cameras that are closer and capable of seeing better detail. Besides, they already took dozens of pictures of the Earth, much larger, from the ship on the way there. Also, by the way, the Earth sits in one place in the sky and doesn't move because of the tidal locking. That position is almost straight up from where they landed. You will never catch it in the background with the moon. Apollo 17 has a few shots of it where the camera operator gets bored of watching the astronauts and points the remote control camera on the rover towards it.
    1
  128.  @exops0s3  Um....... the moon isn't the size of a quarter from Earth. It's smaller than a dime. The Earth as seen from the moon would be slightly larger than a quarter at arm's length. That's only huge in comparison to how the moon looks. To a person that that lived on it their entire lives and watched it shrink for three days, that'd be pretty small because they have a different opinion of what they are seeing. Um, no, it was Alan Shepherd on Apollo 14, who brought HIS OWN balls and club head using the small payload they were given to bring random personal possessions. You are bringing your PERSONAL camera right? Not using NASA's cameras and film?
    1
  129.  @exops0s3  Most hoaxers complain about not having the moon in the background.
    1
  130. No proof that it's real.... and your precious leaders, whom you would sooner castrate yourself than question, still have to resort to faking evidence. Uh-huh...
    1
  131. The makers of Capricorn One had to go crawling to NASA themselves to help make it because they ran out of budget. That's why the lander on the set looks identical to Apollo - they used NASA's very own training props.
    1
  132. Conspiracy theorists HATE questioning everything. Because questioning everything means questioning YOU and how dare you not believe what you're told. Anybody that questions the "truth" is a brainwashed sheeple shill propagandist zombie.
    1
  133. I'm pretty sure that was debunked about two years ago. I know that I remember clicking to a random timestamp and going "Ah, the "non-parallel shadows' claim, again, using the same photograph David Percy got caught editing because he knew his claim was wrong" By the way, you realize that American Moon's creator is a MURDERER , right? He used to make money conning people to their deaths shilling fake medical treatments.
    1
  134. Considering that it only blew up twice out of about 130 launches, a 98% success rate, I suggest you buy a dictionary and look up what the word "most" actually means.
    1
  135. "Controlled opposition" = "This person makes me look bad so let's lie about it to save face." Kaysing is the founder of your movement. He was the first to publish the Apollo hoax claims. Most of the popular claims you know are either directly from his work, or from another group of crooks that based their work on his. Ten years ago, you would be worshipping the ground he and his crony accomplices walked on. So, if the moon landings were fake as hell, why do your fellow hoaxers need to constantly lie?. Oh right, REAL "truth seekers" don't lie; they're "controlled opposition" too. Even the ones like Bart Sibrel who are the biggest source of new members for your movement. So, the deep state IS stupid. And you're a liar just like Kaysing.
    1
  136.  @WuntherTyate360  So if the moon landings were actually faked.... why do all of your "truth seeker" leaders need to constantly lie about their evidence?
    1
  137. And did you see the whole video where he continues talking, blames not going back on needing more money to do new things, and says they went again and again, or simply the hoaxer edited one?
    1
  138. ..... but Russia would have already known the reasons why it was impossible so the chance of this working is 0%.
    1
  139. You do realize that that's insulation material wrapped around the actual hull of the ship, right? This isn't school. Nobody's grading on appearance as long as it works.
    1
  140. So er.... if it were actually a sham, why do the hoax authors need to constantly lie about their evidence?
    1
  141.  @Mordecai88393  Every time a hoaxer claims there was "next to no delay" on the Nixon call, I'm certain they've never actually watched it for themselves. Nixon has no delay because NASA's recording it on their end. The astronauts take 4-8 seconds to respond. There's a very interesting thing about this clip though. Tell me: did you notice that Nixon repeats himself? He's kind of hard to understand because he has an echo about 2-3 seconds later, most likely from the call being picked up on the astronauts' microphones and being transmitted back so it gets recorded a second time.
    1
  142.  @Mordecai88393  If you go to the video they posted for the anniversary of the full landings and turn up the volume, you can hear it cutting in and out in the background.
    1
  143.  @critthought2866  Jack Swigert of Apollo 13 died of a nose tumor that moved to his marrow in 1982.
    1
  144. He didn't. Three of the other astronauts did. The hoaxers lie and claim they didn't or make excuses as to why it doesn't count.
    1
  145. Kennedy, where you "truth seekers" claim that 10 different people pulled the trigger for 20 different reasons and have no consensus at all except it "wasn't Oswald"? That Kennedy?
    1
  146. You mean the "horizon is to close" claim? How are you measuring the distance? Surely not "it looks close". It's nearly impossible to judge distance without an actual frame of reference, especially since there's no distance haze in a vacuum.
    1
  147. And then immediately take a massive loss when Russia outs you to save face? Best case scenerio, you get blackmailed and hope that Russia decides not to drain you dry.
    1
  148. Can't tell if article is serious or trolling.
    1
  149.  @xmaseveeve5259  I mean.... did you READ it? It's a massive hit piece calling all of the major players on YOUR OWN SIDE frauds.
    1
  150.  @critthought2866  Bennett's the sketchiest person on that list. They're a professional psychic.
    1
  151.  @xmaseveeve5259  Since when do the hoaxers give one damn about the truth? You've been caught lying about and faking your evidence more times than anybody can count. The creator of the video mentioned in your article used to kill people shilling fake medical cures. Your #1 website is literally co-owned by a lady claiming to have found her hoax information using ESP.. Don't believe me? Go read Aulis's About the Authors page.
    1
  152.  @xmaseveeve5259  You realize I'm referring to the big starters and spreaders of your movement right? The people who brought you the information in the first place and without whom 95% of you wouldn't be here right? Makes me think of that story where the undercover cop joins a criminal organization to find out it's nothing but undercover cops. The truth is that you know that your side is wrong and that you're all a bunch of frauds. You just lie to save face.
    1
  153.  @xmaseveeve5259  Of course there are. There's the truth, and then your side, a group liars and cheats that lie for money and feels that lying about the government makes you feel important. You know.... you basically admitted I was right, right? I must have really struck a nerve for you to still be this upset four months later.
    1
  154.  @jeffersongeorge2227  I mean.... if you actually had a leg to stand on, your leaders wouldn't need to stoop to lying about your evidence. I mean.... outright editing footage to remove sections that disprove you? That's pathetic. Now run along little sheep. Bart SIbrel needs your money more than you do.
    1
  155. Four minutes in. First claim he makes is calling it "Project Slam Dunk". You can stop right there. We can instantly tell that that's fabricated because that's an anachronism. The term Slam Dunk didn't exist in the 1960s. It was created by announcer Chick Hearn in the 70s, AFTER Apollo had already happened.
    1
  156.  @ancientclown  The fuck are you on about? 1972 is that attribution date on most sports pages that actually give a date.
    1
  157.  @awotnot  About six feet-ish. There's a photo of it deployed on one of the training mockups without the insulation materials on you can find pretty easily on Google images.
    1
  158.  @mechanicjobs  He shut down the comments on his channel because he got caught faking evidence. What makes you think he would dare talk to anybody but bobbleheading yes men?
    1
  159. Wide angle cameras make background objects look smaller than they appear to the naked eye.
    1
  160.  @T._Matthew_Phillips  You realize that we're only one single year past the Marianas Trench example right? 53 vs 52. Crystal ball prediction. When the return trip currently planned actually happens, you will immediately lie and claim that was faked too. Answer my question honestly. Did you believe, in 2010 since you were most likely alive then, that the descent to the challenger deep was fake because it "was never repeated?" Because it hadn't been repeated by then for 50 years.
    1
  161.  @T._Matthew_Phillips  Waah waaah computing power. All these complaints about iphones and calculators, but not a single person can even estimate how much it would actually need. You do realize that it doesn't matter how much computing power you have if nobody's building GIANT ROCKETS to carry it right? Just making sure, you mean the same Van Allen Belts your leaders were so desperate to make the "ultimate proof" make up fake bogus claims about "six feet of lead" to cross? Sure, let's believe the claim you obviously have no standing on because you had to lie. You do reallize that the belts aren't uniform in strength right. This isn't a video game. The world is not split into "No radiation" and "instant death" I mean... even Van Allen's own estimates are for DAYS of unshielded exposure for lethal levels and personally called the hoaxers out on their bullshit, but we should go crackpots on the internet who had to lie.
    1
  162. Psylosopher.... you just believing anything that you find on Youtube right? Akers didn't fact check his script. The very first claim he makes about it, that it's called "Project Slam Dunk" immediately gives away that his story is fabricated. The term "slam dunk" was invented in 1972, AFTER the moon landings. Also, the channel that created that video's been caught red-handed fabricating evidence in the past. It is indeed easier to fool somebody that convince them they've been fooled. That's why once you become a conspiracy nutter, nothing will ever bring you back to reality.
    1
  163. Normally, you perform experiments in a controlled environment. First, because you get better, more accurate results. Second, you can't stop viruses and bacteria once you start. Hope you already have your vaccines and antibiotics ready, because it's going to come around and bite you in the ass.
    1
  164. The instant that one of them gets cancer and has no friends or family, there is nothing you can do to prevent a confession except outright kill them. They're going to die anyways so there's nothing you can buy them with and nothing you can threaten them with.
    1
  165. Head's up, A Funny Thing is one of the #1 reasons why the hoaxers shouldn't be trusted. Bart Sibrel got caught red-handed blatantly lying about his "faking the distance" multiple times, including skipping over parts of the footage he used where they are shown filming without his trick. All they had to do was compare his version to NASA's. The trick doesn't actually work, by the way. If the astronauts were actually in orbit, the clouds and landmasses would be moving the past the window at 17,000 miles per hour as the ship.... you know.... moves. The visible features would have completely changed within a few minutes. Also, if you look closely, when they "remove the insert", the image doesn't actually change until the lights come on so i guess it just vaporizes like a vampire.
    1
  166. And both the Apollo 1 fire and Apollo 8 circling the moon happened under LBJ, so Nixon wouldn't have started the hoax, he would have inherrited an existing one. Gosh darn lucky that the incoming president was willing to continue it instead of cancelling the ruse started by the administration he lost to in 1960 to which he would have held zero loyalty. This must be the first and only time in American history when the Democrats and Republicans worked together on literally anything. Meanwhile, Russia's plans to go went up in smoke. Literally. They spent all their time trying to be "first at everything" to the point of neglecting their moon plans and wound up with a piece of shit that blew up when they tried to launch it, and neither they nor China (the only two other countries that have manned space programs) have had any real incentive to go since. US: "Hey Russia, those are some nice firsts you have. So how is your N-1 going? We're halfway done with the Saturn V because we've been working on that instead of competing with you" USSR: "..... fuck"
    1
  167.  @FierceMouse  .... you mean mylar? A material used for electrical and thermal insulation on Earth, including in firefighting equipment that makes the "extreme heat" of the moon look like Antarctica?
    1
  168. You do realize that the coke bottle is an urban legend, right? There is no BBC documentary. There never was. There's zero proof, none, nadda, squat that anybody actually saw and reported it, just fantastical claims you people can't back up. There's only one single person claiming to have actually seen it and she couldn't be more obviously lying if her name was Pinocchio. The actress, who refuses to talk to anybody but proven fraud David Percy, forgot that the Earth has time zones while crafting her bullshit and claimed that she "stayed up late to watch the landings and saw a coke bottle that was missing when it was repeated on the morning news" - even though the landings happened at NOON in Australia where she claims to have lived. And you people are too brainless to notice the obvious lie.
    1
  169. .... but if the manufacturers don't know, they'll try and build for real. Also, despite people claiming that Apollo was to "steal taxdollars", you probably don't get to keep much of it. It MUST be spent as intended, or at least all of it must be given to your contractors. If the manufacturing companies do not receive their billions of dollars in bid money, your hoax goes public immediately when they turn around and sue for breach of contract.
    1
  170.  @unshapingtheearth7916  I'm not sure what universe you are getting three trillion for the rovers, but okay. Um.... America looks a thousand times weaker than simply failing to make it if they fake it, get caught, and Russia calls them out on it. Russia already knows about the "deadly" radiation and all of the other details that make it "impossible" so your chance of actually fooling them is zero. So, your brilliant plan is to deliberately set yourself up to be caught and pray that Russia's content with mere blackmail.
    1
  171. Really? Because the Flat Earthers are 95% Republican and I seem to recall quite a few conspiracy theorists latching onto Trump's ass like a lamprey and swearing that Orange Jesus was going to "reveal the truth"
    1
  172. .... so then why do your leaders constantly need to fake their evidence?
    1
  173. ... the guy that founded the movement, who 90% of the hoax claims were simply copying until a few years ago?
    1
  174. You realize that the golf balls were one astronaut's personal possessions because they had a small payload for random stuff they wanted to bring, right? Come on, you know you'd take something stupid too. I'd be doing my own experiments with a slinky.
    1
  175.  @riddlescom  You mean the wires that don't affect the sand that is kicked everywhere and which will tangle together every single time the actors circle around one another?
    1
  176.  @riddlescom  You're not very smart, are you? The techniques used for training don't mean they'd be good for "faking the world", especially since these videos are HOURS in length, not 30 seconds. If you have two actors on wires, they cannot cross paths. The wires will tangle together if they do because they are being held by physical objects, not being held up by ghosts.
    1
  177. Bart found a video with a window with blue glare and claimed that it was the nearby Earth. We know that he's lying though his teeth because A. the trick doesn't actually work (if the astronauts were actually in orbit, the ship would be moving), and B, he GOT CAUGHT skipping over shots of them filming without his trick
    1
  178. And then they turn around and kiss the ass of proven liars like... well.... the entire hoax movement because their "truth" movement is nothing but blind contrarianism.
    1
  179.  @RobCarmina  "There are no photos of that procedure" ..... you can watch them remove it from one of equipment bays if you search "Lunar Rover Deployment" right here on Youtube and scroll down a few videos. It takes literally 20 seconds to find. ------------- Dumb question but..... HOW exactly would they exert any form of significant dominance from the moon? It's too far away to be a communications hub; satellites will have less delay. It will take DAYS for your attacks to reach a target vs an hour for a much, much cheaper ICBM, and you CAN'T DEFEND IT. Do you know what a siege is? It's a type of battle where you surround an enemy location, cut off their supplies, and wait for them to surrender or die. A five-year-old can siege out the moon. Any country that is actually a threat will simply declare "The moon base surrenders or we drop a missile on your launch facility" and laugh as they immediately do so to prevent a slow, painful, and 100% guaranteed death because there's no food, air, or water on the moon. Until space combat becomes a thing your "domineering base" will consist of five guys doing nothing but watching old recordings of Hogan's Heroes while the rest of the world goes "That's nice dearie. Good job bankrupting yourself over nothing."
    1
  180. We don't have them at the bottom of the ocean either.
    1
  181. Okay, and Armstrong is not a practicing Christian and the person that "asked" him to swear had previously harassed him to the point that Armstrong had to call the police for stalking and trespassing. Three of the other astronauts - Gene Cernan, Edgar Mitchell, and Alan Bean - did swea. You people either lie and pretend they didn't or make excuses as to why their oaths don't count.
    1
  182. First of all, Kaysing's dead. The CIA killed him through the time tested method of ignoring him until he keeled over of natural causes. Second, government entities have no ability to sue for defamation in the United States. NASA is ineligible to sue. Third, there's a Supreme Court case known as New York Times Co vs Sullivan that establishes that public figures such as celebrities, elected officials, prominent business leaders and other persons of noteworthiness have a separate standard of proof called "actual malice". In order for the astronauts to sue a conspiracy theorist, they would need to prove that they KNEW their claims were or were most likely false and intentionally made them to cause harm or in reckless disregard for the truth. Genuine misunderstanding, incompetence, and insanity do not count.
    1
  183. Buzz never said that. You believed liars that told you what he said.
    1
  184. The "photoshopped' crosshairs are the result of the white bleeding across nearby parts of the photographs. That's why they only appear in low-quality reproductions, NOT the originals, and why they appear both in front of and behind the same object. There is zero reason why any sane person would be pasting white stripes onto the flag. Also, head's up, David Percy got caught red-handed twenty years ago cropping photographs to hide that his "non-parallel shadows' change direction on the ground to be parallel to the other shadows. The hoax leaders know that it's the result of the ground not being flat. They simply lied because they know you'll believe every word they say.
    1
  185.  @gervasebarnes  That's probably not the original. Most of the magazine editions are copies of copies. Some of them are copies of copies of copies of copies. The Hasselblad camera uses a magazine. They just swapped cartridges.
    1
  186.  @gervasebarnes  Generation 1: A print made directly from the negatives. Generation 2: A copy made of Gen 1 in order to bring your picture to NZ NASA is not going to let their originals be handled more than necessary. Generation 3: A copy made of Gen 2 for distribution, as your magazine/Newspaper would have almost certainly more than one. A copy of a copy.
    1
  187.  @gervasebarnes  ..... you can't be serious. Use your head. NASA would have made one or a small number of master prints. Those prints would be duplicated and the copies would be sent to the various publishers while they hold onto the master print. The publishers would duplicate their copies. That's how distribution works buddy. Only a fool think that NASA would use the original film for every single magazine on the goddamned planet and if you really think NASA would just give their master print to your middle of nowhere island, you're awfully arrogant.
    1
  188.  @gervasebarnes  Multiple light sources will cause faint shadows. That's because the light from one source will be shining on top of the shadow caused by the other one. You can see this in photographs where multiple light sources are actually used. Gervase, YOUR OWN SIDE doesn't claim that multiple lights were used anymore. They changed their story to "non-parallel shadows prove the light was close" 15 years ago after Mythbusters recreated the shots with a single light source. Also, YOUR OWN SIDE got caught editing photographs to remove sections of the pictures in order to hide that their "non-parallel shadows" can be seen changing direction to match the shadows they were compared to. They know that it's bullshit, but keep telling it because they know you'll gobble it up.
    1
  189.  @gervasebarnes  Not this shit again Collins was not talking about from the surface of the moon. He was responding to a question they were directly asked as to whether they could see the stars through the solar corona despite the glare, in response to a set of photographs they took from the command module in orbit, not the moon's surface. In other words, he did not recall seeing any stars while STARING AT THE MOTHERFUCKING SUN.
    1
  190.  @gervasebarnes  Uh yeah, because ten years ago Youtube was flooded with bots spamming links to suspicious phishing sites, but I don't see how that's relevant
    1
  191. What are you on about? You do NOT create a vacuum inside the suit to counter a vacuum. You seal the suit, pump it with air, and then wrap it in a net that bends but does not stretch to prevent it from ballooning outwards. If he passed out from the suit, that means the suit wasn't sealed properly. The sunny side of the moon does not almost always face the sun. It faces the Earth. It's in sunlight for two weeks and the darkness for two weeks. Moonlight has nothing to do with being irradiated. It's visible form Earth because the sunlight is hitting the surface and bouncing off. if the surface was actually glowing, it wouldn't have phases. Also, 250 degrees is far below what firefighting equipment gets up to and, the Van Allen Belts aren't radioactive from solar rays. They scoop up particle radiation and trap them for centuries, allowing them to accumulate, like your liver traps toxins in your blood. Why should the difference between a jet and a rocket matter? The only difference is how the thrust is generated, whether it's caused by a chemical reaction or by sucking air through. Both types expel exhaust out the other end.
    1
  192. .............. You do realize that Dr Groves was revealed as a fraud 15 years ago, right? Not only did he expose his film to levels of radiation thousands of times higher than they would have actually been exposed to, he also did heat "tests" where he threw film in a household oven hundreds of degrees hotter than on the moon AND deliberately ignoring that a convection oven uses the one type of heat transfer that doesn't exist in space.
    1
  193. Bill Kaysing's true motivation was revenge against the government for Vietnam.
    1
  194. Alex.... there are multiple versions of that photograph. NASA edited the photograph you usually see by rotating the Earth so that north faced up so it'd look prettier on their magazine covers. They fully admit to doing this and this is not the only photograph that was edited for publication. The famous "Man on the moon" picture was reframed with a black background edited because the original is cropping part of the suit off. You want to know who's lying? Answer this question. Have the conspiracy theorists ever, one single time, shown you the versions where the continents are upside down? Or did they pretend that this is the only version.
    1
  195. I'm going to let you in a little secret. The hoaxers have lied so many times about the Belts that it's all "Wah wah wah wah wah wah wah" like the adults on Charlie Brown now.
    1
  196. ...... you realize that the "China finds no evidence of Apollo" is fake right? That's from World News Daily Report, a satire website. Congratulations, you got your "news" from a knockoff of The Onion. By the way, China's most recent robot is on the complete opposite of Oceanus Procellarum from the nearest Apollo site. That's like claiming the Disney World is fake because you didn't spot it from Texas.
    1
  197. ..... you've not actually seen 2001 have you?
    1
  198.  @appletongallery  And you can debunk hoax claims with that movie because it shows that having multiple light sources creates multiple shadows.
    1
  199. As opposed to the right news, who tried to spread fake "inside information" about Obama and wound up with their "insiders" arrested for felony impersonation of law enforcement?
    1
  200.  @unshapingtheearth7916  Question. If the engines were shut off while the ship was still in the air, wouldn't most of the dust that hits the landing gear hit the BOTTOM, not the top?
    1
  201.  @pacman4568  ........ um.... what? But the moon landing footage has nothing whatsoever to do with model space battles. Have you WATCHED it? You'd be better off pointing to 2001, at which point we laugh at you because even the mighty Stanley Kubrick was so afraid of trying to do space scenes that he didn't even attempt low gravity on the moon.
    1
  202.  @pacman4568  .... and your best way to illustrate that was movies created using special effects that were either created 50 years later using technology that didn't exist at the time or which have nothing to do with the footage shown? You do realize that we know what special effects techniques exist and what their shortcomings are right?
    1
  203. ...... so what exactly is your point? Computing isn't the limiting factor. All of the computing power on the planet will not move you five feet if you don't attach it to a giant rocket. Also, you realize that modern computers are WORSE at leaving orbit right? Modern computer components are WEAKER, not stronger, against radiation. That's one of the side effects of the itty bitty tiny integrated circuits that make your 1,000,000x processing power computer possible. You put your computer anywhere near space and it will be fried before it gets close That's a fancy paperweight you're typing on.
    1
  204.  @ryanm8965  That's not asking it another way. It's running away like a coward and a completely different question because you couldn't answer. But I'll play your game Deepsea exploration. One descent in 1960 to the Marianas Trench, the deepest part of the ocean, zero attempts to do anything even close until 2012, 52 years later. Not one single conspiracy theorist has a single objection to this half a century of "backwards" progress. This is the point where you make up excuses about how "that's not going backwards because they did other stuff instead" and I get to cough awkwardly.
    1
  205.  @SlimSlashie  A moon base isn't useful until spafe combat becomes a thing. It's too far away to serve as an attack base or communications hub and you can't defend it against a siege. Anybody that wants to neutralize it will simply drop a missile on the launch facilities you send your supplies from and leave them to rot because there's no food, air, or water there.
    1
  206. Not only has A Funny Thing been debunked point by point for twenty years, Bart Sibrel got caught red-handed editing his "faking the distance to the moon" to cut out shots of them filming without his trick because he was stupid enough to think that people wouldn't find the footage and compare versions.
    1
  207.  @GoodCitizen.1  You mean this footage? The one that's being shredded frame by frame here?4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_VVWxqpa_E This is part 9 of an hour and a half full debunk. The footage Bart doesn't show of them filming fully illuminated without his trick, despite being literally 15 seconds after a clip he himself uses, is at about 13 minutes in. Gee, that "round" window they're using to make the shape of the Earth looks awfully flat and boxy..... You know what's more embarrassing than a grown man that believes in Apollo? A grown man that needs to watch Sesame Street because they can't tell the difference between a circle and a square.
    1
  208.  @Artamusgordon  I mean..... some people need hobbies? You see the same conspiracy theorists post over and over and over on some videos. I guess that proves that they're being paid shills too right?
    1
  209. There's a scene on one of the missions where the astronauts are digging the hole. Not only do they effortlessly throw the dust around with scoops that don't even reach the knees, one of the astronauts shuffles his foot about one inch and it sprays at least ten feet sideways.
    1
  210. Why is there a pressure gradient that reaches 1% hundreds or thousands of miles below the height of the "dome"? Under the same laws that "disprove the globe", the pressure gradient should IMMEDIATELY expand to attempt to equalize pressure inside your dome, the ENTIRE dome not just the lower 1/10th of it, and not a single one of you sniveling cowards will give an answer as to Why. Entropy disproves Flat Earth and you don't have gravity as an excuse.
    1
  211.  @filmc1999  You know, shouting "Nuh-uh!" usually stops making you correct by the age of 5.
    1
  212. That's the one that was made by the guy that killed people shilling fake medicine right? I'm pretty sure that's already been destroyed itself....
    1
  213.  @darrensice1550  What do you mean how was it possible? He called NASA and NASA relayed the call over their radio broadcast. Radio stations have been broadcasting phone calls since the 30s. By the way, the first satellite phone call was in 1962.
    1
  214.  @darrensice1550  .... what are you talking about? NASA has giant dishes larger than your house scattered around the planet. You point them at the moon, you broadcast to the universe, and they respond using the antenna that's attached to the ship.
    1
  215.  @IAMGABRIELnumber1  You can find pictures of it in a little holding vice if you look up pictures of the MESA table. I think NASA has one where it's highlighted. He called NASA and NASA relayed the call over their radio transmissions. This isn't exactly new technology. We already had trans-oceanic telephone calls via satellite and people had been calling radio stations to talk on the air since the 1930s.
    1
  216. Ah, the video created by a convicted criminal who's been caught faking evidence!
    1
  217.  @shellygardner6410  Might I suggest, if somebody tells you to sod off, not chasing them through the streets hurling insults AFTER getting yourself arrested for stalking and trespassing against one of their coworkers?
    1
  218.  @shellygardner6410  Then go back to school and learn how to read.
    1
  219.  @shellygardner6410  Sorry, i forgot that conspiracy theorists that spam emojis aren't usually very smart. Let me rephrase for the kids on the short bus. Bart Sibrel got punched for being a lying, harassing stalker. This was after he got arrested for stalking and trespassing against Armstrong.
    1
  220. Holy cowJimmy, That's the biggest lie I've ever seen about the petrified wood. Stop right now before your nose hits the wall and you break your neck. The petrified wood has nothing to do with the astronauts or NASA. It most certainly wasn't pawned by them. It was gifted to an ex prime minister of the Netherlands who ASSUMED it to be a moon rock based on when he got it (despite being a full year before anybody else in the world did and not resembling their samples at all) and then his family donated it without having it appraised after he died. Uh yeah, they had an intern steal some of their moon rocks so he could spread them on his bed and be the first person to have sex on the moon.
    1
  221. You realize that Bart damaged YOUR SIDE right? He got caught blatantly and repeatedly lying when his video was compared to NASA's version. This includes: Lying about the footage being "intended for playback later" - despite being from the live scheduled broadcast. Lying about the astronauts pretending to be pressed against the window, when both NASA and the astronauts outright say they are moving the camera back and you can watch them do so. Lying about the astronauts not knowing they were filming, despite discussing the picture quality with NASA uninterrupted., And editing his footage to skip over shots of them filming WITHOUT his trick. Ooops. Also, his trick doesn't actually work. If the astronauts were actually in orbit, we'd see the clouds and landmasses moving outside because the minimum speed to stay in orbit is 17,000 miles per hour, fast enough to cross about 1/6 of the entire planet during the 15 minute long clips he used. Also, if you actually watch, when Bart claims they're "rem0oving the insert", they don't actually remove anything. The terminator line stays in place the entire time until the lights come on so it apparently magically vanished.
    1
  222. Proof that the went: Conspiracy theorists said we didn't, and conspiracy theorists make the government look honest.
    1
  223. No. The moon hasn't gotten sick and left us.
    1
  224. Define "destroyed". All of the equipment that was used build and test them would have been dismantled and cannibalized by the factory contractors once they were no longer needed to save costs on their other projects, the training simulators have almost certainly been dismantled, and we know that NASA tore up their launch equipment to reuse the land for the space shuttle in the 1970s. Doesn't matter how much knowledge you have, without your physical infrastructure, you do not move five feet.
    1
  225.  @magiccheeseball  I forget which of the stations its on. If you go through the footage, you'll eventually see it. It's definitely 17 though.
    1
  226.  @magiccheeseball  Found one. Video title is "Apollo 17 - station 4 with earth view"
    1
  227. Because it cost about 130 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation) and nobody really wants to pay that much. Also, there is no military advantage to going to the moon, not until space combat becomes a thing. It's too far away to be a communications hub; satellites are better. Any missile attack launched from there will take days to reach its target, as opposed to an hour from a ICBM. And as far as a safehouse for VIPS and command, it's probably the worst position. You can't defend it from a siege. Any enemy that poses an actual threat is simply going to drop a missile on your launch pad and laugh as the supply chain is cut because there's no food, air, or water on the moon.
    1
  228. ...... your cell signal is being blocked by the metal and cement that make up the walls and ceiling of the building, genius. There's no walls between the Earth and the moon.
    1
  229. .... but three other astronauts did and it didn't do jack shit.
    1
  230. The suits have like.... ten or twelve layers. What you're seeing is akin to wearing a skiing jacket over a T-shirt over a leotard. Even if it did puff out, only the bottom layers are pressurized so you wouldn't see it. Also, one of those layers works like a net that bends but doesn't stretch, preventing it from bulging out. I believe they also have specialized joints. By the way, radiant heat sources are the easiest to deal with because you can reflect them. That's why the suits are white.
    1
  231. So then why does your side need to constantly lie about their evidence? Twenty years of Youtube and still lie after lie after lie after lie. I mean.... that doesn't mean much to somebody high on horse de-wormer or whatever the latest miracle drug is.
    1
  232.  @codetech5598  Yes yes, a "Scam" to fool somebody that would know you're lying from day 1 and to "steal money" for seeeecret projects you have no evidence of and to get rich without a single scrap of evidence that a single penny was actually embezzled. I mean.... billions pocketed and they don't immediately buy ten mansions like most white collar criminals do? NASA's apparently run by dragons who do nothing with their stolen money but sleep on it. Don't forget how they "hoaxed Apollo 13 to scam more money" - even though the missions were paid in advance so no new money would have been generated from it and the "hoax" did nothing but convince the people that were in charge to end the program sooner. And meanwhile your fellow "truth" seekers have so little evidence that you have to scam.... I mean.... give 'alternative facts for money" in order to "disprove" it.
    1
  233.  @gww5385  I've seen that video before. That's that one where he goes "You can see the panels bulging out and not sealed" while deliberately neglecting to tell the audience that those panels are a cover, not the hull of the ship, right?
    1
  234.  @gww5385  Lying to your audience isn't relevant. Got it. So let me get this straight. The LEM is "fake" because it doesn't look like something that looks like it was designed by a rocket scienitst (IE it doesn't look like Hollywood). The actual functionality (IE the fact that that the "poorly manufactured" exterior is just a cover) should be promptly ignored. And yet not a single rocket scientist has a problem with it Clearly that means that every single rocket designer in the world is being paid off. ...... so why didn't NASA just pay off a rocket designer to design a "more realistic" model to begin with? With all of the leaps, twists, and hoops needed to keep this logic afloat, you should join the circus.
    1
  235.  @jamesesslinger1976  I'm not entirely sure what universe you're from where it only cost 10 million. Apollo cost about 130 billion adjusted for inflation to put 2 men on the moon at a time for less than a week and you people complain that we don't have Space Vegas up there. Also, I would like to point out that space travel isn't a particularly USEFUL and you claim that anything that isn't "more moon landings" isn't progress no matter what purpose it serves because only bigger numbers count. I mean... research into making more efficient spacecraft capable of being used multiple times as opposed to the single use Apollo craft and all of the other shit they do in orbit isn't "progress" because it's not waving the flag from a farther and farther distance. You know what field has progressed? Robotics, and robots don't need to eat, sleep, or drink like a fleshy human does. Given enough advancement, robots are eventually going to be able to perform any actions that a human research crew would, for a fraction of the cost, and stay active for much longer.
    1
  236. Hey, Michael? I sincerely suggest you wash your face and change your shirt. You're bleeding from your nose growing ten feet and slamming the wall. Armstrong never landed is is an outright lie. The training vehicles were successfully flown hundreds of times. Armstrong himself landed it more than twenty times before it had a mechanical failure mid-flight.
    1
  237.  @michaelclark6283  Bullshit. YOU are the one rewriting history and Armstrong for your information explicitly says they could NOT be seen from the daylight side of the moon without their equipment. The "I don't recall" was in regards to a second question of whether the stars could be seen through the solar corona despite the glare. In other words, while staring at the sun itself.
    1
  238.  @michaelclark6283  That's an awful lot of very expensive paperweights you have there, because that's what'll happen to all of your "far more advanced" technology thanks to the wonderful side effects of circuit miniaturization.
    1
  239. Question. Operation Fishbowl is supposed to be an attempt to bomb through the firmament right? The fact that this is SUICIDAL because breaking the firmament will cause the world to flood as all of the water outside comes rushing in should promptly be ignored. Operation Fishbowl was only a few hundred miles high as I recall The sun and moon are supposed to be inside the firmament. The sun and moon are claimed to be 3,000 miles high. Therefore, the firmament is at least 3,000 miles high. You see the problem with this.... right? Apparently, NASA's trying to destroy something that's nowhere even close. #1 rule of lying: keep your story straight.
    1
  240.  @johnwhiting6663  The one that proved your "truth" movement is a bigger fraud than NASA after Bart SIbrel got caught red-handed skipping over shots of them filming without his trick?
    1
  241.  @johnwhiting6663  ..... lean backwards on top of the life support pack that will kill you when you break it?
    1
  242. You do realize that the Mythbusters caused your side to move the goalposts, right? Before the episode, it was "diverging shadows are caused by multiple light sources." After it, it became "diverging shadows caused by close light." You got proven wrong, lied, and changed your story so that you could claim you were proven right. I would also like to remind you that they took TWO sets of photographs. The first, with that same studio light in that same position, creates PARALLEL shadows despite being close.
    1
  243. You can see the "prop line" constantly while driving through rural PA. That's just a hill or dip between the camera and the background many miles away. There are parts where the astronauts walk up to those lines and disappear behind them. Keep in mind that the haze that distant objects on Earth have is caused by the atmosphere. There's no distance haze on the moon. It is impossible to accurately recreate low gravity on Earth without CGI that did not exist at the time. Wires don't affect the dust and will tangle every time the actors cross paths, and speeding up to counteract slow motion causes their other movements like arms and legs to start jerking way too fast. Just as a reminder, a hollywood special effect normally lasts 3-5 seconds, not hours straight. It would be extremely hard to take pictures of the astronauts and the Earth because it will NEVER be in the background to a camera attached to your chest. The tidal locking means that the Earth sits in one place in the sky and never moves, and that's almost straight up from most of the Apollo sites. 3 Kelvin would be the MINIMUM it would get to in interstellar space outside of our solar system or galaxy. The moon's still within influence of the sun. What do you mean "filming by hand?" It spent like... 99% of the time either on a tripod, in a vice on the LEM, or attached to the little turret on the rover. The parts where they hold it are very shaky. The satellite photographs taken of the sites were taken by craft designed for mapping large areas of terrain miles and miles across. Footprints are tiny compared to what they're designed to take pictures of.
    1
  244.  @mitchellsims2600  The truth is that NASA went to moon and that your leaders are a bunch of manipulative frauds. But that's not the story you want to hear. The truth is that you want lies to prevail.
    1
  245.  @mitchellsims2600  If that were even remotely true, why the bloody hell do you believe a single word that the hoaxers tell you when they've been caught in thousands of lies over the last twenty years?
    1