Comments by "Randy Schissler" (@randyschissler5791) on "USA TODAY" channel.

  1. You can't see the horizontal rod across the top? Are you really that dumb?
    5
  2. Bart got punched in the mouth, and for good reason.
    4
  3. Nonsense! If an astronaut touches it in a no atmosphere environment like the moon, it's going to move for a couple seconds. Did you see the long periods of time, when it was completely motionless, not moving in the slightest? Or, did you ignore that part?
    4
  4. Go get some drywall dust or dry cement, and see how easy it is to make sharp defined footprints in it, without moisture!
    4
  5. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and Indian probe Chandrayaan-2 have shown images of the landing sites, equipment left behind, rover tracks, etc. The Chinese probe Chang'e-2 has also verified the landing sites.
    4
  6. The drop down camera on the outside of the LM.
    4
  7. Flim wasn't sitting out in the open on the moon. When not in the LM, the film was inside a metal container, but for a short amount of time. Apollo 11 was on the moon during the dawn of the lunar day. Do you know who long a lunar day is? The recorded temperatures during that time, were -9F to 44F.
    4
  8.  @anthonyontv  Bart Sibrel is a lying con. "“never before seen or heard footage”, what a joke.
    3
  9. Nixon phone call: You never heard of radio? Nixon calling Houston, then patched through via radio to the moon. Amazing how you guys are continually befuddled, by this concept. Buzz never said that to little girl Zoey. You got fooled. Watch the whole 17 minute version, or I'll explain it to you later. Stanley Kubrick never said that. You got fooled again, by the T. Patrick Murray spoof "Shooting Kubrick", with actor Tom Mayk, who didn't even look or sound like Kubrick.
    3
  10.  @yonut7  "is so small can carry any serious fuel to go 384,400 km to moon and 384,400 km back" "How can you ever belive that small capsule can travel 768,8K km with no propulsion at all" Your ignorance is astounding. With that kind of nonsense, you don't deserve to have an opinion on whether something is fake or not. Read a book and learn things, before you make silly claims.
    3
  11. Why do you guys keep asking that dumb question? Is it really that hard to figure out?
    3
  12. No video was lost either. In fact, you can watch it all right here on Youtube.
    3
  13. "and again how did the module make it thru such intense heat when the temperatures they went thru was way above EVERY metal component" Another clown who knows nothing about heat transfer, and how an atmosphere or not, can affect that heat transfer.
    3
  14. "13 times bigger than the moon." Where did you get that wonky number?
    3
  15.  @cletozub  Next full moon, use your phone to take a photo of the moon. Then compare it to what you see with your eyes. Wow, the moon looks so much smaller!
    3
  16. Why would you expect to see stars in daylight?
    3
  17.  @lizardking595  "Buzz Aldrin said on multiple occasions they didn't go." No he didn't, not in his interview with the little girl Zoey, or on Conan O'Brien's talk show.
    3
  18.  @anthonyontv  So, after all this back and forth about the flag, you say the moon landings are fake, yet the best you can come up with is a flag that look like it is blowing in the wind? What are you going to whine about next, why no stars?
    2
  19. I suggest you stay in school, and try to learn something.
    2
  20. "Or why did buzz confess that he never went to the Moon to lil girl " Buzz never did, to little girl Zoey, or to Conan O'Brien, either. You got fooled again. As for the Nixon phonecall, you never heard of radio call in shows? Where you call the radio station from your landline phone, and hear yourself on the radio? It's not magic.
    2
  21. That's a load of nonsense, and Bart Sibrel is a lying huckster. He has been debunked over and over again.
    2
  22.  @MrApplewine  There is no atmosphere on the moon, so there is nothing to transfer heat to the camera and film.
    2
  23. To make it "looks like it's moving in the wind", is to put a horizontal rod across the top, and crumple up the sleeve of the flag on the rod.
    2
  24.  @william7699  Why not? Why is it so hard to not believe that a camera apparatus can be stowed in the side of the LM, and drop down at the pull of a lanyard?
    2
  25.  @william7699  I don't know that actual quote you are referring to, but perhaps he misspoke, not that big a deal. Press spokespersons, don't know every little detail, and sometimes cobble together a statement. You've never seen the press briefings at the White House, that occur everyday? f you saw the pictures of the camera and how it's connected, which you obviously haven't, you would come to the conclusion that it was not faked. No way they would go to all that engineering to make it fake.
    2
  26. The moon is much smaller than the earth, and no atmosphere doesn't soften the edge while also altering the perception of distance.
    2
  27.  @SELFISHchannel " WHY NOT 2ND TIME TO DISCOVER MORE.. ?¿WHY NOT 2ND TIME¿‽ " With ignorance like that, you don't deserve to have an opinion on the moon landings.
    2
  28.  @joshknight8973  "Billionaires and nasa can't figure how to put humans on the moon now." You're wrong again.
    2
  29. "but 1969 land lines go to the moon and back?" Are you really that dumb? You never heard of radio?
    2
  30.  @LoveTarotForever  Buzz never said that. Perhaps try watching the whole 17 minute interview with little girl Zoey. 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 talks about going to the moon.
    2
  31. "And 50 years later all the documents and the recording has been lost" Ridiculous. How do you guys come up with such nonsense?
    1
  32. Anything by Bart Sibrel is only making a fool of yourself, for believing his long debunked nonsense.
    1
  33.  @wildboar7473  "where would you post your humble opinion is those were all exterminated ?" I guess I'd have a lot more free time on my hands. Look at all the time you waste on this fake moon landing nonsense.
    1
  34.  @C____L____O____I  They went nine different times, landed six of those times, all with different crews. That was more than enough.
    1
  35.  @MrApplewine  The spacesuits were designed to reflect 90% of the suns radiation. The cameras were coated, to reflect the suns radiation as well. So, very little heat would have been transferred.
    1
  36.  @MrApplewine  They were there during the dawn of the lunar day. Apollo 11 recorded temperatures were -9F to 44F.
    1
  37. Clever, but still stupid.
    1
  38. Why do you guys keep asking that same dumb question? Are you really that incapable of finding the answer?
    1
  39.  @william7699  Congrats to you!
    1
  40.  @ohfft  That one measly piece of petrified wood, never even came from NASA or any astronaut. What part of that don't you understand? Not put on display at the museum by NASA or any astronaut. 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.
    1
  41. ​ @ohfft  You're ridiculous. Meteorites are called meteorites for a reason. Lunar meteorites found in Antarctica or any where else on Earth, are not the same as moon rocks brought back by spacecraft. Any credentialed geologist can tell the difference between a real moon rock and a meteorite. Over 800 pounds of moon rocks that have never been in dispute, as to where they came from. Hundreds of samples have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions from around the world.
    1
  42.  @ohfft  "Who is going to dispute something they don't have access to or can't verify?" Hundreds of samples have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions from around the world. When a meteoroid falls through the Earth's atmosphere a very thin layer on the outer surface melts. This thin crust is called a fusion crust. The moon has no atmosphere to form this crust on meteoroids striking it. Meteoroids become meteors (burning in the atmosphere) when entering Earth's atmosphere, and meteorites when striking the Earth.
    1
  43.  @ohfft  Yes, but the moon has no atmosphere, so no friction to cause burning and a fusion crust. Mars and Mercury have an atmosphere with some oxygen, conducive to burning.
    1
  44.  @michaeldavis6605  You don't understand heat transfer at all. There is no atmosphere to transfer heat to the astronauts. The surface of the moon could be hot to the touch, but that is why they wore insulated overshoes.
    1
  45. They were responding to the reporter's question, "when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?" Would you expect to see stars while looking at the sun?
    1
  46. Is everything by your Indian Space Research Organisation, all a hoax and conspiracy too?
    1
  47. Which mission was that, with the camera zooming in on them leaving the moon?
    1
  48. They wore overboots, when walking on the moon. Those boots match the footprints on the moon.
    1
  49. Why are you so ignorant that you don't know the answer?
    1
  50.  @timparziale8762  That's a lousy analogy. 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. Keeping a lie secret for 50 years, and for what? Really? Or, are you saying that the Manhattan Project was a hoax as well? 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? 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?
    1