General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Randy Schissler
Global News
comments

Comments by "Randy Schissler" (@randyschissler5791) on "5 famous moon landing conspiracy theories debunked" video.

It was referring to seeing stars in daylight on the moon. I'm sure you wouldn't be able to see stars in daylight either.
29
It's also because of the electronics. The microcircuits of today are much more sensitive to radiation effects than the physically big electronics of Apollo.
15
Though a great movie, it was lousy when it came to the moon sequences. Kubrick hardly even tried to replicate 1/6 gravity in a vacuum. He was smart enough to know it couldn't be done convincingly, so didn't bother.
14
Ridiculous. Polaris Dawn with a crew of four, passed through the belts two months ago, with no problem.
8
You should have paid attention to the reporter's question, when he asked: "could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?" Could you see stars while looking in the solar corona?
8
Did you ever watch it? The moon sequence is a lousy example of trying to simulate walking on the moon. Kubrick himself knew that realistically simulating 1/6 gravity in a vacuum was impossible, so he hardly tried to in his movie. Still a great movie, though.
8
That's a laugh! While 2001 had great special effects, the moon walk sequence was not. As was pointed out by Mark, Kubrick didn't even try to simulate 1/6 gravity in a vacuum, because he knew he couldn't.
7
Because there is no atmosphere to keep the dust floating around. The moon is a vacuum.
7
@shazyboy227 "He says he can't remember seeing any stars at all. " He was responding to the reporter's question: "could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?"
7
How about, there is gravity on the moon, only it is 1/6 of the earths gravity. Not only are you wrong, but not very smart.
7
@dewishesso2305 You're grasping, and sounding desperate now! Like a few pictures that don't have 100% of the foreground in focus, must mean that the moon landings were fake? LOL!
7
They broadcast it live from the moon, six times already. And that was impossible to fake.
7
@thrillweb "NASA admitted to lying, doctoring photos for public sensitivity and erasing Apollo mission data. " Total nonsense. You forgot to bring the evidence. Great that you listen to the astronauts, since they all admit going to the moon.
7
Today in daylight, while the sun is shining, and your camera set for daytime exposure, take some pictures of the sky. Let's see if stars show up in your pictures
7
The same old Bart Sibrel, debunked nonsense.
6
No.
6
@shazyboy227 False! His answer was in reference to the period of time they were photographing the solar corona.
6
@dewishesso2305 "My goodness, such a long journey to the stars and not a single star in all the thousands of photos taken. " What a ridiculous argument! Why should anyone care about pictures of the stars? The importance was the moon, and what was going on with the moon, nothing else.
6
@johnnytremain7438 You left out this part: "However, this disappointing discovery does not mean the Herculean effort that spanned more than eight years ended in vain. The team uncovered the best television-formatted recordings of the Apollo 11 moon landing" Copies of the original Apollo 11 moonwalk still exist, so not really lost. It's all irrelevant anyway, the lack of telemetry tapes disproves nothing. That still leaves thousands of photos, hundreds of hours of video and over 800 pounds of moon rocks, as proof the moon landings did happen. The fact that NASA would acknowledge the error, should show you some bit of honesty, don't you think? I mean, if they are lying about everything, then why not lie some more?
6
"How could something of this magnitude have all video footage from NASA lost? " With such ridiculous ignorance, you don't deserve an opinion.
5
Because it would cost enormous amounts of money to do so, and there would little if any practical benefit. And no, space tourism is not a money making venture.
5
I've seen the footage, and he never said that.
5
Artemis/Orion should be there in 2025. The technological reason why they haven't gone lately, is not having a rocket big enough to get there. Because it is so expensive to go to the moon, it hasn't been a priority to build the craft needed, to get to the moon. NASA has prioritized other endeavors instead, which wouldn't have been done, if they kept focusing on the moon.
5
You really think a cell phone is all you need to get to the moon?
5
@clementfortin4315 The main reason why they didn't take a lot of pictures of the earth from the moon, was because most of the time the earth was high overhead. Not in the normal line of sight, when taking pictures of the moon, so the earth wasn't included in most shots.
5
@r.dfordtech5996 Totally false! You let yourself get fooled by an edited little clip with little girl Zoey. Try watching the whole 17 minute version.
4
@Grimy_Aaronarr "so you mean to tell me close to 300 degrees isn't warm enough to burn meat in the oven" If that oven was on the moon, then no. With no atmosphere or air to conduct heat, it's not the same as on earth.
4
False, he never said anything of the sort.
4
@AlienFrequency No, he never said that. I know exactly what you are referring to. Perhaps 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, they went to the moon.
4
It stayed up, because there was a horizontal rod across the top, attached to the pole.
4
How old were you in 1969?
4
"Temperatures on the moon fluctuating over 200 degrees Celsius" Pretty ridiculous for you to be talking about temperature extremes, when you know nothing about heat transfer, and how an atmosphere or not, can affect that heat transfer. You really think that heat and temperature are the same, like 200 degrees on the earth would feel the same as 200 degrees on the moon?
4
"I have a hard time believing they would sonehow lose the knowledge and technology to get humans past the radiation belts" They didn't.
4
Yeah, with no CGI they knew they couldn't fake it, so they had to go to the moon!
4
@colleenmackey460 I have no idea what you are talking about, you must be confused. Unless, you are talking about the aborted Apollo 13 mission, where the astronauts were forced to use the "Lunar Module" as a lifeboat, until they could transfer to the Command Module? Here is the structure of the Command Module: The command module consisted of two basic structures joined together: the inner structure (pressure shell) and the outer structure. The inner structure was an aluminum sandwich construction which consisted of a welded aluminum inner skin, adhesively bonded aluminum honeycomb core, and outer face sheet. The thickness of the honeycomb varied from about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) at the base to about 0.25 inches (0.64 cm) at the forward access tunnel. This inner structure was the pressurized crew compartment. The outer structure was made of stainless steel brazed-honeycomb brazed between steel alloy face sheets. It varied in thickness from 0.5 inch to 2.5 inches. Part of the area between the inner and outer shells was filled with a layer of fiberglass insulation as additional heat protection.
4
How long was it kept secret, 50+ years, or about three years? Also, the secret wasn't protecting a lie, it was protecting the fate of the free world.
4
Why would you expect a massive scorched hole? What would that be based on? Perhaps you saw it in a cheap sci-fi movie, and that's why? Realize, the moon has only 1/6 the gravity of earth, a huge factor.
4
The Apollo astronauts had enough shielding for themselves, for the short duration of time they were exposed. With Orion, the problem was with the electronics. Apollo had physically big electronics, while the microcircuits of today are much more susceptible to the effects of radiation. If the electronics on the spacecraft fail, then the astronauts die. Rest assured, it has been solved, and the Lockeed Martin contest is over.
4
Total nonsense! 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.
3
@myownway-q6w Ridiculous. You can't even get the Capricorn One story right.
3
Nonsense! NASA engineer Kelly Smith never said that.
3
@jasonpurnell4118 "Magic space suit that handle massive temperature changes" What massive temperature changes would they have experienced, while doing most of the moon walking at dawn? Also, I take it that you have no idea what the difference is between heat and temperature, and how atmosphere or not, might affect it?
3
Because we got along just fine, with the technology we had at the time. I was there then. I wasn't thinking: "Wow, if only I had a microwave oven and a cell phone, I could do great things in life. Since I don't, nothing can be accomplished."
3
@Vt12365 Knowing Bart Sibrel, it probably was a fake Bible. Still, astronauts Alan Bean, Eugene Cernan, and Edgar Mitchell, did swear on the Bible. So, if swearing on the Bible is the criteria for whether the moon landings were real or not, that must mean the moon landings were real!
3
And why is that? Why would a magnetic field affect film? Anything to back that ignorant claim up?
3
@tommy2pieceya734 That's a ridiculous, backwards way of thinking. You might as well say there is no indisputable proof of anything, which is meaningless.
3
Except for the "Yup we 100% went to moon," everything you said is false.
3
That one measly piece of petrified wood never even came from NASA or any astronaut. Over 800 pounds of moon rocks, with hundreds of samples examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions, from around the worlds, and none of it has ever been in dispute as to its authenticity.
3
Which Apollo landing are you talking about? You know that there were six of them, right? Or, like most moon landing hoaxers, they think there was only one landing in question. Surely, you wouldn't expect a big huge crater, right? With such light gravity, 1/6 of earth's, it wouldn't take much to blast off. Astronauts held up by wires is nonsense!
3
@stevenwilloughby1848 "they must've used tech me,u and nobody else has heard of because it was so simple to do without transmission towers." No, it's stubborn ignorance that's holding you back. Why not learn about the subject, before you make wild and false claims? You've never heard about Unified S-Band, Deep Space Network, 200 foot diameter radio telescopes, yet you seem to think communication to the moon should be the same as around the earth.
3
"they lost the telemetry data" So, they faked everything, but they couldn't fake the telemetry data, so they instead said they lost it? Shouldn't you guys try to make sense of something, before you make ridiculous claims?
3
Except, attached to cables isn't that clear. With 1/6 gravity, it is easy to pop back up. The video that some hoaxers think shows reflections of cables, is actually lens flare from a reflection of the antenna. Also, for a cable system to work, you would need two cables, yet you never see that second cable.
3
@colleenmackey460 So, you've been to the Smithsonian to see The Fonz jacket, but didn't go to the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum to see the Apollo 11 Command Module? Obviously, not destroyed.
3
@RedHeavy- Good for you!
3
I assume you are just trying to be funny, right? But if you're not, Nixon called Houston Mission Control on his landline, and they patched it through to the moon by radio, using a big giant radio telescope to transmit and receive.
3
@rayna6635 There was no camera on the moon filming a landing of the LM. Nor was there video of the LM landing on the moon. There was an animation shown on the live TV broadcasts of the landing, but it was labeled as an animation.
3
The reason the dust doesn't stay aloft, is because of no atmosphere, no minute wind currents to propel the light weight, and low mass dust.
3
They wore overshoes while walking on the moon. Sorry, nothing there worth getting excited about.
3
@JohnMarkss The reason "US officials said they had no explanation for the Dutch discovery," is because that one measly piece of petrified wood, never came from NASA! Yet, from over 800 pounds of moon rocks brought back, hundreds of samples have been routinely examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions from around the world, and not one has ever been in dispute! Never determined to be fake, or not from the moon!
2
@JohnMarkss "The rock had been vetted by NASA. They had no explanation for it." Again, you are trying to read into something that is not what you think, or what you want to think. NASA said it wasn't a moon rock that came from NASA. They had no explanation as to why it was said to be a moon rock, or where it came from. Makes sense to me.
2
@nashiacharlson9899 We know exactly what the astronaut said, David Pettit. The point is, that you don't understand what he was talking about.
2
@nashiacharlson9899 I agree he could have worded it better, but he was just one insignificant person, not the official spokesperson for NASA of all time. The problem is that moon landing deniers, constantly seize upon that one quote, like it is proof that the moon landings were fake, when it is absolute nonsense to think that one quote means anything of the sort.
2
What mission was that?
2
"According to the NASA official information, this was the first try to actually land on the moon and the mission was an absolute and perfect success, with everything executed without any mistakes, no unexpected events." Seriously? What a naive and narrow way of thinking. Ever here about the Gemini program? Twelve Gemini missions from 1965-1966, ten manned, each with step by step tests and maneuvers to lead up to Apollo. Apollo 11 was the first landing on the moon. So, that meant ten previous Apollo missions, to get everything perfect for Apollo 11. Then Apollo 12. Apollo 13 aborted, because everything wasn't so perfect. Then Apollo 14, Apollo15, Apollo16, Apollo 17 in 1972. If it was all just to be fake, why would they have all those missions, just to be fake? Like, you don't think faking everything requires perfection as well?
2
@GodBless0007 Because the technology isn't the reason why they haven't gone back to the moon. Get educated!
2
@ShakeDownStreet0714 Easily manipulated? You're the one who fell for the nonsense about the flag, and one recorded over backup tape.
2
It's about the electronics. With Apollo, the electronics were physically big, while the microcircuits of today are much more susceptible to the effects of radiation.
2
Ridiculous.
2
@Tsunami_Japan_ I was talking about the "so everything was filmed in Holywood," nonsense.
2
@Tsunami_Japan_ You don't say what recording you are referring to, but some of them have been edited to remove the dead space, to make it more appealing to the listening public.
2
@Tsunami_Japan_ Interesting how the only videos you reference are highly edited. Here is an example of what Yaz is talking about. Go to Apollo Lunar Surface Journal and EVA Preparations. You can listen to the audio, which corresponds with the shown transcript. Like this: 107:31:00 Armstrong: Houston, Tranquility Base. 107:31:03 McCandless: Go ahead Tranquility Base. 107:31:09 Armstrong: Okay. We are on about the middle of page 28, Surface (checklist page) 28. 107:31:20 McCandless: Roger, Tranquility. We copy.
2
@Tsunami_Japan_ Here is a couple, AS11-40-5924 and AS17-134-20384. You'll notice how high in the sky the earth is, in reference to the foreground. That's why there aren't that many, as the earth was usually directly overhead during picture taking on the moon.
2
@Tsunami_Japan_ Why didn't you start out with "I am a flat earther." I could have wasted a lot less time on your idiocy.
2
@Tsunami_Japan_ I'll make one more stab at this. Here is a partial list of some of the best photos of the real earth from space. 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.
2
They lifted off with the ascent stage of the LM. It had its own fuel source. The decent stage was left behind.
2
Nothing is lost. How do you come up with such nonsense?
2
@crons8584 I assume you are talking about the edited clip from an interview, which is misleading because it was taken out of context. But that is what conspiracy theorists do, selectively edit to mislead people. Collins was talking about what the other two guys were experiencing on the dayside of the Moon during the day. If you listen to the whole clip, including the reporter's question, you will realize that he is talking about the perspective of Buzz and Neil from the surface of the dayside of the Moon.
2
@AHD4020 Though film was used, the landings were broadcast on live video. Were you not around then to watch? Video is not film. You still haven't said why a magnetic field would affect film.
2
Anything on UFO's was classified, but never a big secret. They just didn't comment about them, that's all. Big difference to faking six moon landings in a fully public manner, that were never fake.
2
"yet every picture we've seen looks perfect. " So, you only looked at the good pictures? There were thousands of pictures taken, and there are many that are blurry, poorly framed, and some downright lousy. Those pictures are freely available for viewing, so quit making it sound like there is some deception in only perfect pictures being published. "In many photos the reference cross hairs are obscured. This is impossible unless the photos were doctored' Which is totally false. When you look at the high resolution photos, the crosshairs are clearly in front. You got fooled by low res photos, put out by lying conspiracy theorists.
2
@drews5569 That's a load of nonsense! The fact that you are under the premise that the only photos that exist, are few and perfectly framed and exposed, shows how little credibility you really have. And if presented with the thousands of photos that are freely available to view on the internet, that you would still call them all fake, is just nuts. Trying to say Buzz said he saw a fox running around on the moon is laughable, as well. Russia may have been ahead early in the space race, but they were quickly overtaken, and the US was way ahead of them by the mid 60's, and that's a fact.
2
No, you must not have understood the reporter's question.
2
@insanityandgenius4600 Of course I did. I'm wondering if you did, since you don't seem to know or understand the reporter's question?
2
Ridiculous. Just watch the moon walk sequence. Kubrick didn't even try to simulate 1/6 gravity in a vacuum, because he knew he couldn't.
2
Because there is gravity on the moon.
2
Funding, drive, and purpose. A fast computer or fancy cell phone is of little consequence.
2
@davisrichard3440 With the footprints, and dust kicked aside from the astronauts feet and lunar rover, you can easily notice the soft soil. How deep it is before hitting rock, I don't know, but the flag is not heavy. Nothing is heavy on the moon, with 1/6 gravity of earth.
2
Because it was a sunny day.
2
"what is strange about the landing ones are that many are not parallel, which signifies more than one light source" No, it signifies that the various objects are at different elevations, different angles, irregular in shape. Go try it sometime in your back yard, with irregular objects at different elevations, and see if the shadows are not all parallel with each other..
2
@patricksmith4424 "this is partly due to reflections from walls etc causing secondary light sources." If there were secondary light sources there would be multiple or secondary shadows. The moon photos show none.
2
Survivability=Thinnest belt + High speed
2
You forgot that there is no atmosphere on the moon for a cloud of dust to linger in the air (that's not there! Lol!).
2
@bradleyrex2968 Exactly! The astronauts knew full well what the earth looked, but the moon, not so much, so 99.9% of the pictures taken should be of the moon.
2
Look up March to the Moon, and click on the Image Galleries. Sorry, but you will have to go through them one by one to find the pictures showing footprints, but they are there. Perhaps, you will be amazed at how many pictures there are? Hard to fake all those, I'd say.
2
@hoanglinhle4468 But sending 1 robot to a specific location for high res pictures is too complicated?" Just to try and appease foolish moon landing conspiracists? That's stupid. You would call that fake too. There are over 8,000 photos from all the missions, many in high res. That's more than enough to document the moon landings.
2
@missmissi77 Contrary to what some people think falsely, space is a very low pressure environment.
2
Even space suit air pressure is only inflated to about 4psi.
2
@carlosfromsc How did they pull of that 1/6 earth gravity, in a vacuum, on a movie set? Especially since it's never been done before, even to this day!
2
"Are you aware Buzz was questioned by a child & he admitted the fake" What a liar you are! Totally false, he never said that! Go back and watch the whole video, and pay attention this time!
2
@ppstorm_ Nonsense! You're trying to backtrack now. You're the one claiming they "only take(took) a total of 20 unique photos on the surface of the moon."
2
Because of the electronics. In 1969-1972 electrical components were very crude by today's standards--very big compared to microcircuits of today. Much more susceptible to radiation. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HUMANS GETTING THROUGH THE RADIATION BELTS! No conspiracy why NASA hasn't had a flight back to the moon--there isn't funding or the will of congress to pay for spacecraft capable of repeating the moon landings. Surely, you don't think NASA should keep 50 year old spacecraft on hand, just so they can take a quick trip to the moon whenever they feel the urge?
1
@travissharon1536 Let's assume the laser really is 22 miles away and 5ft off the ground. What's the elevation of that ground, and what's the elevation of the ground you are viewing it from? But, you don't know that, right?
1
Boring. You watched a video that told you what to think about Armstrong and the press conference. What a sheep!
1
@Bret 1959 No, you only need a half of a millimeter or less.
1
@Bret 1959 It seems heavy because it covers your whole chest, but the way the young female dental assistant throws it around, it can't weigh that much.
1
"maybe they just didn't spend enough time there to get sick" At least you got that part of it right.
1
@paulcini6084 Actually, aluminum does offer protection from radiation, and the Apollo spacecraft covering was much thicker than a tin can.
1
No comparison, that's just stupid! Keeping quiet to promote a lie is totally different than keeping quiet for something you know is true, and involves the fate of the entire world. You know, like not wanting the Nazis to get the A-bomb first?
1
@JohnMarkss You're trying to read into something that is not there. The fact is, that while it was during a good will tour that the three astronauts participated in, the one piece of petrified wood was never presented by any of the three astronauts or anybody from NASA.
1
@Grimy_Aaronarr Nonsense! It's a vacuum, and you can't conduct heat in a vacuum. The astronauts did most of their moonwalking at dawn, so between the temperature ranges. Most sunlight was reflected, and their boots and gloves were insulated from surface to surface temperature concerns. Still, with no atmosphere, not like being in an oven.
1
@BertleMcGertle Yes, I know. That's what I said, two posts above.
1
@neilarmstrongsson795 Even if you pare down the few to hundreds, that is still a lot to keep quiet for 50 years, without even one person getting a conscience enough to break the silence.
1
@neilarmstrongsson795 And believe it or not, many people have different values. You want to paint everybody with the same brush, and say that everyone will give into extortion. You seem to think that everyone is willing to compromise their integrity, conscience, god, just to keep living. I'm telling you, it's not that simple.
1
@spikenomoon "I went to Panama I got third degree sunburn in 30 minutes " False! Or do you have the scars to prove it? "Who taught Van Allen" You want to say all these scientists are wrong and you are right? Who taught you, to make you more credible? "Even the director of NASA said on a tv interview. WE CANNOT GO TO THE MOON NOW BECAUSE WE CANT FIGURE OUT TO GET THROUGH THE BELTS. " Totally false! Maybe you are referring to an edited clip of engineer Kelly Smith, talking about the danger of the belts to modern electronics? "ALSO SAID WE CANT GO BECAUSE WE LOST THE TECHNOLOGY. " No director of NASA ever said that either! Maybe a misconstrued and taken out of context clip by former astronaut Bob Pettit, you are referring to?
1
Except, with no atmosphere, you can't compare it to what those temps would be like on earth. Most of the extreme temps on the moon, would be felt from the surface of the moon, through the astronauts boots, which were well insulated. The spacesuits also reflected 90% of sunlight. On earth, most temperature is transferred through atmospheric means, but which isn't possible on the moon.
1
The technological advancement is pretty much irrelevant. Besides, how has rocket technology really advanced over the years?
1
You can watch all the footage, including Apollo 11, right here on Youtube.
1
He's talking about during daylight on the moon.
1
There are a few photos, not many, but I have seen them. Yes, they should have taken more. Probably because the astronauts were working on the moon, not sightseeing.
1
@darrenporter1850 I don't have a better answer, you should ask NASA. I'm sure they thought that anything happening on the moon would be much more interesting than the earth. There are a couple photos from Apollo 17. One with a large boulder in the foreground, and the earth in the background. A couple others from different angles, showing the astronaut, the planted American flag, and the earth high up in the sky. It's really hard to embed links now, with Youtube's AI run amok recently.
1
@yazzamx6380 I get GD Venus? What do you mean by fullstop? A period?
1
@jankopandza1072 Bart Sibrel is a dishonest, lying, slimeball. Why would you give someone like that credibility? Anyone like that, dishonors and perverts what the Bible represents. Any respectable Christian would and should, decline to swear on a Bible that's only offered for the publicity it might create. Using a Bible for personal gratitude, is not what the Bible is for.
1
Simply, no rocket and spacecraft available at this time, capable of going back to the moon.
1
@I_AM_3.6.9. So, you took those pictures on the moon? Surely, you don't think taking pictures on the moon is the same as from earth?
1
@sailorman8668 So, you are saying that if you were on the moon, you could take pictures with your phone, and the stars would show up just as nice as if you had used your phone to take the pictures on earth?
1
Because it isn't about the technology. Without funding, drive, and purpose, the technology is mostly insignificant.
1
@ben6993 What are you talking about? Different crews, landed on the moon six times, took thousands of pictures, hundred plus hours of video, brought back over 800 pounds of moon rocks. I'd hardly call that a waste of time.
1
@drews5569 It's funny that you talk about being "open-minded", but then make comments like: "Even if you're correct about the seemingly doctored photos being unedited, that proves nothing other than the editing was good." and "But even if they exist, it proves nothing other than NASA's anticipation of people scrutinizing perfectly framed photos and ensuring there were "thousands" of blurry, terrible photos was a good idea."
1
@davisrichard3440 "I'm sure it would have taken a few attempts n a few diff astronaut B4 actually getting to the moon" Every bit of the missions were planned out in incredible detail, including backup plans, to prevent mishaps and deaths of astronauts. Don't be so naive to think all you have to do is make a quickie movie, and that's all you need. You're clueless about what that would take, as well.
1
@davisrichard3440 "They beat us first wit satellite, n first to orbit, " And the US soon moved ahead of the Soviets in the space race. The space race was essentially over, a couple years before the first moon landing. Look at the Gemini missions preceding Apollo, Gemini 3 through Gemini 12. Those were all crewed missions that did a number of things that prepared for the Apollo missions. Have you even heard of the Gemini program? Then there were the Apollo missions, especially the crewed Apollo 7 through Apollo 10 missions. Apollo 10 did everything Apollo 11 did, except land the LM on the moon. The Soviets were no where near the US, with all those missions. In fact, the Soviets main moon rocket kept blowing up, and without that, no way they were going to the moon. Also, I hope you know that it wasn't just Apollo 11 that landed on the moon. Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17, all landed on the moon, with Apollo 17 in 1972. Apollo 13 was aborted.
1
Which one?
1
@Bret 1959 How do you know they haven't? Just because it wasn't on Youtube? In the realm of important things to NASA, lingering dust wouldn't be one of them. Anyone with common sense and some scientific understanding would know that there wouldn't be dust clouds in an environment with no atmosphere.
1
@Bret 1959 What you said is basically correct. I never said there wouldn't be dust, just that clouds of it wouldn't linger in space(air on earth), like it would on earth. On the moon, the dust would settle at the same rate as if an astronaut was dropping a heavy moon rock. The acceleration of an object on the moon, due to gravity, is 1.62 m/s2. This is approximately 1/6 that of the acceleration due to gravity on Earth, 9.81 m/s2. On earth, the mass in dust particles is so low that air molecules and air currents keep them aloft, thus, overriding much of its gravitational acceleration.
1
When Nixon and congress cut funding to NASA, the Apollo program was cancelled, and that meant no more moon landings. It takes an enormous of money to go to the moon, and for decades, the public wasn't that interested in going back to the moon, either. It hasn't been until recently with Artemis/Orion, that it has started back up again.
1
@Bret 1959 Just because some non-engineer artist drew or painted a blast crater on a promotional item, has nothing to do with what would happen in reality.
1
@hoanglinhle4468 The Indian probe Chandrayaan-2 has shown images of the landing sites. The Chinese probe Chang'e-2 has also verified the landing sites. Maybe you should ask them to send a robot to take high res pictures for you.
1
@johnnytremain7438 "The ORIGINAL data is "lost"." Ok, lets say SOME original data is lost, so what! It's irrelevant, to six successful moon landings.
1
@johnnytremain7438 "Rijksmuseum "moon rock"?!" So, now you want to whine about one measly piece of petrified wood, that never even came from NASA or any astronaut? Even so, that still leaves over 800 pounds of moon rocks, in which hundreds of samples have been examined by geologists, scientists, educators, and institutions, from around the world, and not one has ever been in dispute.
1
Yawn...
1
Dumber than dumb.
1
@32ModB Radio waves do travel at the speed of light. [no silly emojis needed]
1
@Bret 1959 Wrong! I assume you are talking about film and not video? Film at half speed was basically impossible because shooting it on film would require thousands of feet of film. A typical reel of 35mm film—at 24 frames per minutes second—lasts 11 minutes and is 1,000 foot long. If we apply this to 12 frames per second film (as close to ten as we can get with standard film) running for 143 minutes (this is how long the Apollo 11 footage lasts), you would need six and a half reels. These would then need to be put together. The splicing joins, transfer of negatives and printing—and potentially grains, specks of dust, hairs or scratches—would instantly give the game away. There are none of these artefacts present, which means it wasn't shot on film. When you take into account that the subsequent Apollo landings were shot at 30 frames per second, then to fake those would be three times harder. So the Apollo 11 mission would have been the easy one. I don't know where you got the nonsense about the space suits. Maybe you think any and all space flight is and was fake? Maybe you are a flat earther too? The quote from Paul Delaney is meaningless. Anyway, it has nothing to do with 1969-1972.
1
@Bret 1959 I think you've already decided that the moon landings of 2024 will be fake. That's pretty clear. So what were the "old fashioned ways" of faking stuff on film? Kubrick's 2001 Space Odyssey was a lousy example, with many flaws. Why are you so obsessed about vacuum chambers? I think you are confused with something needed to withstand high pressure. It's just the opposite. Have you ever heard of vacuum packed food? Thin plastic is all you need. The astronaut suits are mainly concerned about leakage, so they don't suffocate from lack of oxygen, not the rigors of operating in a vacuum. Saying that any astronaut should swear on a Bible provided by a lying con huckster like Bart Siebel, is ridiculous! It's an insult to even ask, especially by someone who has been proven to have no credibility on the subject in question. Someone like that doesn't deserve the publicity he craves. He only cares about the publicity he could garner, not the truth. At least you are not a flat earther. I'll give you credit for that!
1
@ppstorm_ Look up "March to the Moon" and then click on the image galleries. You'll find all the photos for all the Apollo missions that went into space and the moon. Then, come back here and apologize for being so dumb.
1