Comments by "Randy Schissler" (@randyschissler5791) on "Today I Found Out"
channel.
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Don Pettit, whom you seem to be alluding to in your "we lost the technology," is not and never was a spokesman or authority for NASA. Yet, conspiracy theorists seize upon that one misconstrued and misinterpreted quote, as if it means something monumental, when it doesn't at all. In 1972, when Congress cut funding to NASA, the Apollo program was scrapped. That meant everything that went with it, contracts with contractors, infrastructure, equipment, engineers, support personnel, all of it. That's what Pettit meant with his poor choice of the word "technology." It was never about the technology needed to get humans through the Van Allen belts. With Apollo done, this gave NASA the opportunity to do less cost draining projects, and they did a lot over the decades. If they had kept going to the moon, they couldn't have done those things.
4
-
4
-
4
-
@wesleyA4962 "Even a NASA engineer saying we have to figure out how to protect our astronauts from radiation won't convince y'all. "
You're very confused. You are referring to NASA engineer Kelly Smith, in the 2014 video Orion: Trial by Fire. Kelly is talking about the new Orion spacecraft, passing through the Van Allen belts. He explains about the susceptibility of modern electronics to the effects of radiation. Modern microcircuits are very tiny and fragile, in comparison to the physically big electronics of Apollo. That's why the Apollo spacecraft didn't have a problem getting through the Van Allen belts. Notice how Kelly is talking about the radiation effects to the electronics, and not the humans on board. The danger is that if the electronics fail, then the spacecraft fails, and when the spacecraft fails, the astronauts die. But also notice when Kelly says that Orion has protection, shielding that will be put to the test, as the spacecraft cuts through the radiation, to make it home safely.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheOriginalNatBurner "why isn't there an unedited picture or video of the Earth in its entirety. "
That's totally false. Also, you are letting yourself get conned by the slimy huckster Bart Sibrel. Anyway, here is a partial list of some of the best photos of the earth. Not CGI, Photoshopped, or composite. All shot on celluloid film.
AS17-148-22725 to 22751, that's 26 photos.
AS08-14-2383 to 2394, that's 12 photos.
AS08-15-2535 to 2580, that's 46 photos.
AS08-16-2588 to 2609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-44-6668 to AS11-44-6696, that's 29 photos.
AS11-36-5293 to 5309, that's 17 photos.
AS11-36-5317 to 5381, that's 65 photos.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
That's interesting, because this is what Dr. James Van Allen has said about Apollo passing through the belts. You know, the same guy who discovered and studied the belts, that even bear his name?
"The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.
The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.
A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.
However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
James A. Van Allen
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"then you are just flat out ignorant" "The only people in on the scam were the astronauts"
The only one ignorant is you. Astronauts, that spent their entire lives, dreaming about going to space, became decorated military pilots, test pilots, then astronauts. People with real integrity and pride, yet you think they would eagerly throw all that away, and submit to becoming actors and fakers.
Anyway, basically what you are saying it that all the people at the top, maybe a couple dozen, a hundred perhaps, agreed together that it would be a good idea to fake it all? Even then, how do you get such complete, loyal compliance to fake something so large? You really think that would be easy? What do they really have to gain, and everything to lose? 50 years go by, and no one would ever get a conscience about protecting a big lie? Are they the ones doing the faking too? Convincing real astronauts that now they are actors and faking would be good, organizing all the audio and video fakery themselves as I'm sure they must know all about that kind of stuff, somehow coming up with fake moon rocks to pass off as real moon rocks, convince the Navy that the splashdown is all going to be fake, etc., etc. And you don't think this would require a huge conspiracy? Also, mentioning the CIA just proves more of your ignorance. You know nothing about the CIA, what they do, and what their purpose is. They certainly could care less about any moon landings.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@roel2835 "one of the videos NASA presented that today it is impossible to pass through the Van Allen belts and that today no one has the capability to do so in America - that it is impossible. "
A totally false statement that you can't seem to back up.
I'm guessing are referring to NASA engineer Kelly Smith, in the 2014 video Orion: Trial by Fire, that's been brought up above. Kelly is talking about the new Orion spacecraft, passing through the Van Allen belts. He explains about the susceptibility of modern electronics to the effects of radiation. Modern microcircuits are very tiny and fragile, in comparison to the physically big electronics of Apollo. That's why the Apollo spacecraft didn't have a problem getting through the Van Allen belts. Notice how Kelly is talking about the radiation effects to the electronics, and not the humans on board. The danger is that if the electronics fail, then the spacecraft fails, and when the spacecraft fails, the astronauts will likely die. But also notice when Kelly says that Orion has protection, shielding that will be put to the test, as the spacecraft cuts through the radiation, to make it home safely.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@wesleyA4962 Obviously, you didn't read a word of what I wrote. Are you really that desperate, to want to think that six moon landings by six different crews were fake?
Here, I'll give most of it to you again. Kelly is talking about the new Orion spacecraft, passing through the Van Allen belts. He explains about the susceptibility of modern electronics to the effects of radiation. Modern microcircuits are very tiny and fragile, in comparison to the physically big electronics of Apollo. That's why the Apollo spacecraft didn't have a problem getting through the Van Allen belts. Notice how Kelly is talking about the radiation effects to the electronics, and not the humans on board. The danger is that if the electronics fail, then the spacecraft fails, and when the spacecraft fails, the astronauts die. But also notice when Kelly says that Orion has protection, shielding that will be put to the test, as the spacecraft cuts through the radiation, to make it home safely.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Did you see the parts of the press conference where they were laughing and smiling? Or just the edited conspiracy theory version that told you they were miserable with shame and guilt? Don't be a sheep! They were mostly bored, and for good reason. That press conference wasn't until a couple weeks after their return. After being locked up in quarantine all that time, after being away from their families all that time, after being asked the same questions during the quarantine, after a grueling mission to the moon, after years of training for the moon missions doing the same things over and over, after years of being a military pilot, test pilot, then astronaut. The astronauts weren't private explorers seeking fame and fortune, they were mostly doing a job they were trained and paid to do, nothing much more to them than that.
3
-
@minnesotaflats "we can’t get to the moon, but somehow we can get to Mars."
That's as dumb as can be. Artemis/Orion should be on the moon in 2025. Mars, maybe in the 2030's. It's really not about the technology. It's about funding, drive, and purpose. Without those three, the technology is mostly irrelevant. If they don't have the funding, drive, and purpose to go to the moon, which they don't until now, they ain't going to the moon. It's really not that hard to understand.
More false nonsense about the "moon rocks have been exposed as petrified wood. One measly piece of petrified wood that was never even given by NASA or any astronaut. If you are going to make stupid claims, at least try to get it right. Anyway, that still leaves over 800 pounds of real moon rocks. Hundreds of samples given out by NASA, have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions, from around the world. Not one has ever been in dispute, and that's a fact.
ISS footage filmed underwater, what a joke! You think a conspiracy theory video that claims to show one bubble, is credible? Now, that's laughable and pathetic. Why are you so gullible to believe such nonsense? You obviously have no idea what it takes to film underwater.
Reply
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"The first thing that made me start having doubts was the Apollo 11 press conference "
Did you see the parts of the press conference where they were laughing and smiling? Or just the edited conspiracy theory version that told you they were miserable with shame and guilt? Don't be a sheep! They were mostly bored, and for good reason. That press conference wasn't until a couple weeks after their return. After being locked up in quarantine all that time, after being away from their families all that time, after being asked the same questions during the quarantine, after a grueling mission to the moon, after years of training doing the same things over and over, after years of being a military pilot, test pilot, then astronaut. The astronauts weren't private explorers seeking fame and fortune, they were mostly doing a job they were trained to do, nothing much more to them than that.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
No, not NASA or any astronaut, gave anyone a piece of petrified wood.
Who were the eight people that ran Mission Control, did all the staging and took 20,000 photographs, wrote all the scripts, convinced real astronauts that now they are actors and faking would be good, organizing all the audio and video fakery themselves as I'm sure they must know all about that kind of stuff, somehow coming up with fake moon rocks to pass off as real moon rocks, convince the Navy that the splashdown is all going to be fake, etc., etc?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
That one measly piece of petrified wood, never even came from NASA or any astronaut. J. W. Middendorf II, who was the US ambassador to the Netherlands at the time, gave it to a former Dutch prime minister, Willem Drees. When Drees died, it was put in the Dutch Museum, where it was discovered that it wasn't real. Maybe at one point it was a real moon rock, that got stolen and replaced hoping no one would notice, but who knows for sure. Even so, that leaves over 800 pounds of moon rocks that have never been in dispute. Hundreds of samples have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions from around the world, and not one has ever been found to be fake.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aok4418 "Look at the photo of Tracy's rock with Schmitt. AS17-140-21496"
A high resolution photo (4400x4600) of AS17-140-21496 shows LM off to the top right of the rock. In the distance between the rock and the mountains. You can see the gold of the LM!
High resolution photo AS17-140-21493 also shows the LM off to the top right of the rock.
High resolution photo AS17-140-21494 also shows the LM off to the top right of the rock.
High resolution photo AS17-140-21495 also shows the LM off to the top right of the rock.
High resolution photos AS17-140-21493, 21494, 21495, 21496, all show the LM. You can see the gold!
Also, I've looked at those two photos you reference, and the backdrops are not even close. Break it down into thirds, and look at the right side third. Look at right side of the LM on 134-20513 and it is extremely obvious they are not the same. With those photos of the LM, the scale has everything to do with it. You think they are little hills of little distance, but they are not. If you look through the sequence of photos, you will see that the backdrop changes. How is that possible if it is the same 2D backdrop? The whole notion behind all this, is just plain stupid, anyway. Each photo would have to have it's own 2d backdrop. There are literally thousands of photos. Thousands of photos all requiring a different backdrop, so that's thousands of backdrops as well. And they would all have to seamlessly blend together. Tyson was right, to do all that meticulous documentation, "it's way easier to just go to the moon!"
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Maxim.ID4HO Do you realize that if it wasn't for Dr. James Van Allen, you wouldn't even know about the Van Allen Belts? Wouldn't you think that he would be a more credible source than yourself? Here is what he has said about the matter:
"The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.
The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.
A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.
However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
James A. Van Allen
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dvdburno J. W. Middendorf II, who was the US ambassador to the Netherlands at the time, gave it to a former Dutch prime minister, Willem Drees. There was a plaque that went with it, describing it as a moon rock. Middendorf said he got it from the State Department, but couldn't remember the details. When Drees died, it was put in the Dutch Museum, where it was discovered that it wasn't real. Maybe at one point it was a real moon rock, that got stolen and replaced hoping no one would notice, but who knows for sure. Even so, that leaves over 800 pounds of moon rocks that have never been in dispute. Hundreds of samples have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions from around the world, and not one has ever been found to be fake. You quote that "every single one of them that have been analyzed by a third party have been proven not to be from the Moon", is nonsense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@esra_oziskender "Even some scientists claim that there is no even moon! Moon is only a reflection!"
That's nonsense! No scientist has ever made that claim. Only some goofy flat earthers have made ridiculous claims like that.
Going to the moon is extremely expensive. To go to the moon, you need funding, drive, purpose, and technology, in that order. Without the first three, the technology is mostly irrelevant. When the Apollo program was cancelled, there had been six landings, and Congress and the general public had lost interest in more moon landings. So, over the decades with the reduced funding it did have, NASA branched out and did a number of other things, mostly with unmanned probes. However, if you had been paying attention you would know that Artemis/Orion plans to return to the moon in 2025. Didn't you hear about the last Artemis launch a couple months ago?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Did you see the parts of the press conference where they were laughing and smiling? Or just the edited conspiracy theory version that told you they were miserable with shame and guilt? Don't be a sheep! They were mostly bored, and for good reason. That press conference wasn't until a couple weeks after their return. After being locked up in quarantine all that time, after being away from their families all that time, after being asked the same questions during the quarantine, after a grueling mission to the moon, after years of training doing the same things over and over, after years of being a decorated military pilot, test pilot, then astronaut. The astronauts weren't private explorers seeking fame and fortune, they were mostly doing a job they were trained to do, nothing much more to them than that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@realityhijack1985 That one measly piece of petrified wood, never came from NASA or any astronaut. J. W. Middendorf II, who was the US ambassador to the Netherlands at the time, gave it to a former Dutch prime minister, Willem Drees. When Drees died, it was put in the Dutch Museum, where it was discovered that it wasn't real. Maybe at one point it was a real moon rock, that got stolen and replaced hoping no one would notice, but who knows for sure. Even so, that leaves over 800 pounds of moon rocks that have never been in dispute. Hundreds of samples have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions from around the world, and not one has ever been found to be fake.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DaemonZodiac Here is a partial list:
AS08-13-2369 to 88, that's 19 photos.
AS08-14-2507 to 80, that's 73 photos.
AS08-16-2619 to 58, that's 39 photos.
AS08-16-2587 to 609, that's 22 photos.
AS17-162-24047 and 48, that's two photos.
AS17-162-24066 to 73, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22669 to 71, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22679 to 86, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22699 to 702, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22717 to 51, that's 34 photos.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
" you would think 50 years later we could go to the Moon as easy as driving to the store "
You don't realize how incredibly expensive it was to go to the moon, so that argument is silly. You also seem to think that it is the technology as to why they haven't gone back to the moon. The technology is very minor in comparison to other issues. It's more about funding, drive, and purpose. The technology ranks behind all those. I guess they should have asked you, for the idea to put a return camera on the moon! While no camera, laser reflectors were left on the moon. With the right equipment, you can access them yourself. A few backup tapes were accidentally recorded over. Mistakes happen. Why aren't you impressed that they admitted it? Anyway, since there were copies made of the same data, nothing was really lost, so it's irrelevant. You can watch all the film footage right here on Youtube, if you want.
Reply
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mikewest9033 "they believed going to space was impossible because a human wouldn't live getting threw the van allen belts."
But when was that, 1958? In subsequent years, a lot more data about the belts was obtained with probes going through the belts. They found the belts to not be as dangerous as originally thought. Even Dr, James Van Allen changed his position on it, you know, the same guy who discovered and studied the belts, that even bear his name. Here is what he was said about the matter.
"The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight.
The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months’ duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure.
A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.
However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage – a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable.
The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."
James A. Van Allen
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ok, I found the image from NASA. Here is what they say about it:
"The high-resolution Narrow Angle Camera (NAC) on LRO takes black-and-white images, while the lower resolution Wide Angle Camera (WAC) takes color images, so you might wonder how we got a high-resolution picture of the Earth in color. Since the spacecraft, Earth, and moon are all in motion, we had to do some special processing to create an image that represents the view of the Earth and moon at one particular time. The final Earth image contains both WAC and NAC information. WAC provides the color, and the NAC provides high-resolution detail."
The image from Apollo 17 (the one with the flag), was a wide angle shot, and not high resolution. So, of course the earth would be tiny and not that clear. The focus is on the flag, not the earth. The image you are referencing above, is narrow angle, so the earth appears very close to the moon. A wide angle shot would look much different. Also, the image has been processed, and looks more artsy, than what you would see standing on the moon.
2
-
@Sertao2013 You're making a silly request. Why should there be hundreds of photos of the earth being the main focus? Most of the time on the moon, the earth was high overhead, so the earth being in the right position was rare. The astronauts were there to take pictures of the moon, not the earth. Everybody knows what the earth looks like, the moon not so much. The cameras had a wide angle fixed lens, no zoom, and the f stop settings were either f/5.6 or f/11. What's your point about all this anyway?
Regardless, here is a partial list of photos of the earth. You can decide whether they are in good enough focus or not.
AS08-13-2369 to 88, that's 19 photos.
AS08-14-2507 to 80, that's 73 photos.
AS08-16-2619 to 58, that's 39 photos.
AS08-16-2587 to 609, that's 22 photos.
AS11-40-5923 to 24, that’s 2 photos.
AS14-64-9189 to 97, that’s 9 photos.
AS17-134-20383 to 84, that’s 2 photos.
AS17-134-20387, that’s 1 photo.
AS17-137-20910-11, that’s 2 photos.
AS17-162-24047 and 48, that's two photos.
AS17-162-24066 to 73, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22669 to 71, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22679 to 86, that's seven photos.
AS17-148-22699 to 702, that's three photos.
AS17-148-22717 to 51, that's 34 photos.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
NASA, nor NASA engineer Kelly Smith, said that. In the 2014 video, Orion: Trial by Fire. Kelly is talking about the new Orion spacecraft, passing through the Van Allen belts. He explains about the susceptibility of modern electronics to the effects of radiation. Modern microcircuits are very tiny and fragile, in comparison to the physically big electronics of Apollo. That's why the Apollo spacecraft didn't have a problem getting through the Van Allen belts. Notice how Kelly is talking about the radiation effects to the electronics, and not the humans on board. The danger is that if the electronics fail, then the spacecraft fails, and when the spacecraft fails, the astronauts will likely die. But also notice when Kelly says that Orion has protection, shielding that will be put to the test, as the spacecraft cuts through the radiation, to make it home safely.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alanunruh7310 No that one piece of petrified wood was not given by any astronaut, or member of NASA. The Dutch national museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.
Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.
"I do remember that (Drees) was very interested in the little piece of stone," the NOS quoted Middendorf as saying. "But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that.""
There is even a plaque for it, saying "With the compliments of the Ambassador of the United States of America J. WILLIAM MIDDENDORF, II." Originally, it could have been a real moon rock, then stolen and replaced with the much larger piece of petrified wood, hoping no one would notice.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JA-oo9qp That one measly piece of petrified wood, never even came from NASA or any astronaut, or given by NASA or any astronaut. J. W. Middendorf II, who was the US ambassador to the Netherlands at the time, gave it to a former Dutch prime minister, Willem Drees. When Drees died, it was put in the Dutch Museum, where it was discovered that it wasn't real. Maybe at one point it was a real moon rock, that got stolen and replaced hoping no one would notice, but who knows for sure. Even so, that leaves over 800 pounds of moon rocks that have never been in dispute. Hundreds of samples have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions from around the world, and not one has ever been found to be fake.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Because you are saying that creating a hoax to fake the moon landings is entirely plausible, based on the Manhattan Project. Even if you think the moon landings were real. Protecting the Manhattan Project was about keeping Hitler from getting the bomb, and thus save the whole world. Protecting a moon landing hoax, would be about protecting a big lie. Big difference! They don't compare!, one was real and one would be a lie! The idea that a lie could be kept secret by thousands of people for 50 years, is ridiculous. You must not know much about human nature. You don't think people can ever feel regret, or get a conscience, for bad things they have done in their lives, and would ever want to make amends? Anyway, basically what you are saying it that all the people at the top, maybe a couple dozen, a hundred perhaps, maybe thousands, agreed together that it would be a good idea to fake it all? Even then, how do you get such complete, loyal compliance to fake something so large? You really think that would be easy? What do they really have to gain, and everything to lose? Are they the ones doing the faking too? Convincing real astronauts that now they are actors and faking would be good, organizing all the audio and video fakery themselves as I'm sure they must know all about that kind of stuff, somehow coming up with fake moon rocks to pass off as real moon rocks, convince the Navy that the splashdown is all going to be fake, etc., etc.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@davidmclachlan6592 "they gave the prime minister of Holland a piece of 'moon rock' "
That one measly piece of petrified wood, never even came from NASA or any astronaut. J. W. Middendorf II, who was the US ambassador to the Netherlands at the time, gave it to a former Dutch prime minister, Willem Drees. When Drees died, it was put in the Dutch Museum, where it was discovered that it wasn't real. Maybe at one point it was a real moon rock, that got stolen and replaced hoping no one would notice, but who knows for sure. Even so, that leaves over 800 pounds of moon rocks that have never been in dispute. Hundreds of samples have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions from around the world, and not one has ever been found to be fake.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Also I remember watching a video of a NASA expert saying in an interview that they haven't send anyone to the Moon ever since because they somehow "lost" the technology to do it. I think he said that they couldn't figure out how to get pass the radiation belt. "
Well, you sure got that all wrong. Don Pettit, not a NASA expert or NASA spokesman, just an old astronaut, said "destroyed" not "lost." Perhaps a wrong choice of words, but he's still right. When Congress and Nixon stopped funding the Apollo program, everything associated with it went bye bye. All the infrastructure, contractors, engineers, spare parts, all gone. Of course it's a difficult process to build back again. And no, he never said, nor did anyone else from NASA, say they couldn't get past the Van Allen belts.
I won't bother with the other "I think" nonsense.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aok4418 So you ignored my list from the other thread. Many independent third parties, that had nothing to do with NASA, tracked different Apollo missions to the moon and back, by a variety of means: Bochum Observatory, Jodrell Bank Observatory, Larry Baysinger, Arcetri Observatory, Paul Maley, Sky and Telescope Magazine, Chabot Observatory, Corralitos Observatory, Paul Wilson and Richard T. Knadle, Jr., Jewett Observatory, radio amateurs W4HHK and K2RIW, Sven Grahn.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mstr-menstandingfortheirrights Just as I suspected, you are referring to NASA engineer Kelly Smith, in the 2014 video Orion: Trial by Fire. I've seen it more than a few times. You should watch, and actually pay attention to what Kelly is saying. He doesn't say at all, that "we haven’t sent people to space", or anything close to that. Kelly is talking about the new Orion spacecraft, passing through the Van Allen belts. He explains about the susceptibility of modern electronics to the effects of radiation. Modern microcircuits are very tiny and fragile, in comparison to the physically big electronics of Apollo. That's why the Apollo spacecraft didn't have a problem getting through the Van Allen belts. Notice how Kelly is talking about the radiation effects to the electronics, and not the humans on board. The danger is that if the electronics fail, then the spacecraft fails, and when the spacecraft fails, the astronauts will likely die. But also notice when Kelly says that Orion has protection, shielding that will be put to the test, as the spacecraft cuts through the radiation, to make it home safely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
They were mostly bored, and for good reason. That press conference wasn't until a couple weeks after their return. After being locked up in quarantine all that time, after being away from their families all that time, after being asked the same questions during the quarantine, after a grueling mission to the moon, after years of training doing the same things over and over, after years of being a military pilot, test pilot, then astronaut. The astronauts weren't private explorers seeking fame and fortune, they were mostly doing a job they were trained to do, nothing much more to them than that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RJ-s41ty "why do they use such a more expensive and heavy metal (lead vests) when giving x-rays?"
Yes, you do need thick lead shielding against high intensity X-rays but the radiation in the Van Allen belts is not X-rays, its charged particles. There are two main types of radiation, the first is electromagnetic waves. This covers everything from the radio waves, though microwaves, infrared which we feel as heat, visible light on through ultra violet, X-rays to Gamma rays, that is the electromagnetic spectrum. The second type of radiation is charged particles, these are the component parts of atoms such as protons, neutrons and electrons which have been broken apart by nuclear reactions or extreme heat as in the sun.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@RJ-s41ty Independent third parties, tracking Apollo to the moon: The Soviet Union, Kettering Grammar School, Dr. Michael Moutsoulas at Pic du Midi Observatory, Justus Dunlap and others at Corralitos Observatory, Professor Heinz Kaminski at Bochum Observatory, Jodrell Bank Observatory, Larry Basinger, Paul Maley, Chabot Observatory, Paul Wilson and Richard T. Knadle, Jr., Jewett Observatory, Sven Grahn.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Did you see the parts of the press conference where they were laughing and smiling? Or just the edited conspiracy theory version that told you they were miserable with shame and guilt? Don't be a sheep! They were mostly bored, and for good reason. That press conference wasn't until a couple weeks after their return. After being locked up in quarantine all that time, after being away from their families all that time, after being asked the same questions during the quarantine, after a grueling mission to the moon, after years of training doing the same things over and over, after years of being a military pilot, test pilot, then astronaut. The astronauts weren't private explorers seeking fame and fortune, they were mostly doing a job they were trained to do, nothing much more to them than that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I asked Microsoft's CoPilot AI about this, and this is what it said:
Google did not conclude that footage from the 1969 U.S. moon landing was fake. A video circulating on social media claimed otherwise, but it’s essential to clarify the context12. Let’s explore a few instances where misinformation or conspiracy theories have led to confusion:
AI-Generated Images: Recently, a post on X purported to show images proving that the moon landing was fake. These images depicted camera crews on a stage resembling the moon’s environment. However, these images were not genuine; they were created using artificial intelligence (AI). The post was debunked, and the AI-generated content was identified using a tool called Hive Moderation21.
Stanley Kubrick Theory: In June 2023, another post claimed that the 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing was faked. It shared footage of an alleged simulation, suggesting that filmmaker Stanley Kubrick directed it. However, this theory lacks evidence and is widely debunked34.
NASA Manipulation Claims: Some conspiracy theorists argue that NASA manipulated photos and film from the space program. However, these claims are often based on misinterpretations or misinformation. For example, a video presented by conspiracy theorist Dave Murphy claimed that certain NASA images were manipulated. Still, these claims lack substantial evidence43.
In summary, the Apollo moon photos are not fake, and extensive evidence supports the authenticity of the moon landings. NASA’s achievements remain a remarkable milestone in human history!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You have to realize that after six successful moon landings, and twelve astronauts walking on the moon, public interest started to wane, as well as interest by Congress and the President, who control the funding. So, in 1972 the entire Apollo program was cancelled. All funding was cut off. There was supposed to be an Apollo 18, Apollo 19, and Apollo 20, but those were cancelled as well. Along with the funding, all the infrastructure, equipment, engineers, contractors working on parts, all went away. That is what is meant by "lost the technology."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wesleyA4962 "Even a NASA engineer saying we have to figure out how to protect our astronauts from radiation won't convince y'all. "
You're very confused. You are referring to NASA engineer Kelly Smith, in the 2014 video Orion: Trial by Fire. Kelly is talking about the new Orion spacecraft, passing through the Van Allen belts. He explains about the susceptibility of modern electronics to the effects of radiation. Modern microcircuits are very tiny and fragile, in comparison to the physically big electronics of Apollo. That's why the Apollo spacecraft didn't have a problem getting through the Van Allen belts. Notice how Kelly is talking about the radiation effects to the electronics, and not the humans on board. The danger is that if the electronics fail, then the spacecraft fails, and when the spacecraft fails, the astronauts die. But also notice when Kelly says that Orion has protection, shielding that will be put to the test, as the spacecraft cuts through the radiation, to make it home safely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chinering23 Are you really that ignorant, or just dumb? Maybe you should watch the whole 17 minute interview with little girl Zoey, instead of the edited conspiracy theory version. Notice the question Zoey asks: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?" Long time means from the last time since going to the moon. Buzz answers appropriately, "We didn't go there" during the long time since the last time going to the moon. Please pay close attention to what he said immediately after, as it's very telling as to why no one has gone back to the moon since the last time going to the moon. It's not that hard to understand. Also, if you watch the first part of the interview he talks about going to the moon. And at the end of the interview, he still talks about going to the moon. With all that talk about going to the moon, he went to the moon.
Apollo astronauts that went to the moon, Alan Bean, Eugene Cernan, and Edgar Mitchell, did swear on the Bible. That means they went to the moon.
1