Comments by "rockethead7" (@rockethead7) on "neo" channel.

  1.  @DeputyNordburg  Six now (as of a few months ago on Chandrayaan-3). Or, even more if you include the ones that crashed and shattered into a million pieces.
    11
  2. And, it's amazing that the people who reject Apollo know as little about the topic as you do about evolution (which you clearly also reject). Dewdrop, evolutionary biologists do not claim any of our ancestors were monkeys. You reject evolution without understanding it, as I'm sure you reject Apollo without understanding it.
    9
  3. "how could it transmit the first steps?" It was hooked up to the S-band radio. "Was it already there when they got there?" It was mounted to the side of the lander in the equipment bay, on a structure called the MESA. It folded out from the side of the lander. "lol." Thanks for demonstrating that you don't want answers to your own questions. "Anyone who believes they really went to the moon is nuts." So, every single one of the world's 77 space agencies, staffed with the virtual entirety of the experts on the topic (either as direct employees or as contractors), are nuts? And, YOU know better? And, you know this because "how did the camera work"? So, you have no understanding of the camera, but, for some reason, you believe you know more than the entire planet's experts. Right. Sure. "have used NASA and the military to launder tax payers money" Dewdrop, how would that even work? Why would they choose an extremely public program for any such "laundering"? And, who's the benefactor of this "laundering"? Can you name someone in particular? Or, just "they"? The government has any number of black projects going on at any time, with no public access to documentation to know where the money is going. Why not use one of those programs for any such illegal activity? No? They chose the most publicly visible multi-billion dollar endeavor in history? THAT's the program to use? "they allegedly ‘lost’ the technology" It's lost in the exact same spirit that Concorde supersonic airliner technology is lost, or SR71 technology is lost, or X15 technology is lost. "Lost" has more than one meaning, dewdrop. Stop getting your "knowledge" from conspiracy videos that lie to you.
    8
  4. Well, there are no functional cameras at the landing sites to show what the equipment looks like after 50+ years. So, what choice does he have but to generate it with CGI?
    8
  5. Yes, it was. It was mounted to the MESA on the side of the lander, pointed at the ladder. Then, Armstrong moved it out to its final spot on the tripod.
    8
  6. First of all, those are from two separate movies (both made by Bart Sibrel, though). Secondly, yes, not all of the astronauts remembered all of their training decades later, especially something as insignificant as the Van Allen belts. No aerospace engineers, nor any radiobiologists, thought the Van Allen belts would be an issue for Apollo. James Van Allen didn't think there'd be an issue, and he's the one the belts are named after. So, why is it significant to you if an astronaut doesn't recall that part of his training? They were quite busy learning the craft, the mission parameters, lunar geology, the emergency procedures, the flight characteristics, etc. Why do you care if someone doesn't remember "oh, and by the way, you're going to go through the Van Allen belts, but, it won't matter"? It only became important to you deniers because conspiracy videos told you so, not because any actual expert thought so. Third, sorry, but if you actually fell for that silly "round window trick" lie, there's not much hope for you. Bart Sibrel said it was his very best piece of evidence, yet, it falls apart instantly with just a tiny bit of knowledge. There are a million ways to know for yourself that his window trick claim is complete nonsense. But, if you need your hand held for you, "Addendum A Funny Thing Happened... (By GreaterSapien - MIRROR)" is quite a nice demonstration that Sibrel was the real liar, and not the astronauts. It's only a few minutes long, but, it makes it quite clear. And, if that's not good enough, there are dozens more ways to know that you're wrong. I mean, you couldn't even get Sibrel's version correct. It wasn't a "picture over the window." It was a CUTOUT of the window (his claim anyway). You cannot even get Sibrel's lies correct.
    8
  7. You clearly have no interest in the answer to your own question.
    8
  8. Every single one of the world's 77 space agencies on Earth disagree with you.
    8
  9. That's not how it works. You hit a much bigger area of the moon, which includes the reflector. These laser ranging facilities get more and more accurate over time. But, still, they're basically hitting something the size of a football field, and then counting the photons that bounce back off of the reflectors.
    8
  10. Strike one. Want to try again?
    8
  11. "Where’s all the trash from the other 5 landings" He made a video covering one landing site, and you're complaining that he didn't make 5 more videos? "including 2 jeeps" 3 rovers. Yeah, you really know a lot about this topic alright. "This is" So, you don't know anything about Apollo, but, you think you understand it better than the entire planet's experts somehow? "NASA budget worth $74 mill /day to taxpayers" It's not quite that high, but, close enough not to complain. Dewdrop, are you even aware of the hundreds of different programs they run? It's not all about going to the moon. It's not even all about space. They finance jet research, weather studies, microchip development, glacier studies, etc. Congratulations on telling the world that you don't know anything. Now, if you really want to do the world a favor, put this post on every job application you ever fill out.
    8
  12. They didn't. The camera was mounted to the side of the lander. 20 minutes after the first steps, they mounted the camera to a tripod and moved it to its final spot.
    7
  13. Who told you such a silly thing?
    7
  14. Wow, it's been a whole 3 hours since someone asked that question.
    7
  15. Huh? You think everyone would believe it merely because there wasn't internet? What? How about believing it because the Soviets and dozens of other countries tracked Apollo to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes? How about believing it because any backyard amateur could aim their antennae at the moon and receive Apollo 11's audio broadcasts? How about believing it because multiple countries have photographs from lunar orbit that show the Apollo landers on the surface? No? It's only because of TV? What?
    7
  16. Yeah, you watched a few videos made by some taxi cab drivers and yoga instructors that gave you false information, so, now you believe things "just don't fit," while the rest of the world knows better.
    7
  17. It's been 55 years, and thus far, nobody has ever offered any credible evidence that Apollo 11 was a "lie." Every single argument ever presented by your ilk has fallen apart instantly with the slightest amount of scrutiny. 55 years and counting. How much more time do you need?
    7
  18. Dewdrop, it's the same camera. Armstrong detached the camera from the MESA on the side of the lander, attached it to a tripod, and moved it about 40 feet to its final resting spot. You can see him do it in "APOLLO 11 16MM ONBOARD FILM 1969" at 54:45. The angle wasn't able to capture him detaching the camera from the MESA, but, you can clearly see that's where Armstrong was at the time, and then you see him moving the camera.
    7
  19. Really? You think Aldrin said he never went to the moon? You're not just intentionally taking quotes out of context? Really? So, Aldrin admits that he was involved with the biggest fraud in human history, and nope, nobody cares, no investigations, no trials, no senate inquiries, no press coverage, nothing. Now, can that be because SANE people know that Aldrin never said any such thing? Or, is that because that YOU somehow uniquely noticed these "confessions" that nobody else notices?
    7
  20. Short story: it would take a lens or mirror a quarter mile in diameter to do what you're asking. And, that's without solving the problem of atmospheric distortion. We have no such lenses or mirrors.
    7
  21. Armstrong took it from the MESA (where it recorded the first steps) and mounted it to a tripod, and carried it to its final spot where it took video of the rest of the moonwalk.
    7
  22. Huh? So, what about the orbital photos from recent probes? What about all of the original mission photography? All "fake" in your mind?
    7
  23. Dewdrop, there have been TWO Orion missions through the belts. What in the world are you talking about?
    7
  24. I know absolutely nothing about how light and optics work. So, when I sit here and expect optics to do something impossible, I can't possibly just admit I'm wrong. Instead, I will preemptively declare that anybody who tries to teach me about optics and light is a minion of Satan. That way, I can continue to pretend to know things I don't, and I can ignore all input.
    7
  25. So, what's your excuse for "their"?
    7
  26. Dewdrop, how many different countries need to find the Apollo landers on the lunar surface before you believe it?
    7
  27. What "research" have you done? Watching conspiracy videos doesn't count, you know.
    6
  28. Please put that on every job application you ever fill out. It makes the hiring process so much easier.
    6
  29. I don't understand it, therefore it's fake. "why is it so difficult for NASA to show us clear, HD images of the moon's surface" They do. The LRO images of the lunar surface are massively huge files, with far beyond "HD" resolution. But, they zoom them in such that each pixel represents about 1.5 feet. If you go look at the original files, you'll see that they are tremendously high definition, but, it would take you probably around 20-30 minutes to comb through them to zoom in on the lunar lander and rover tracks and stuff. "when they can get better quality images of Saturn" Really? You think they could see a lunar lander from this distance? You clearly do not understand how big Saturn is, and how small a lunar lander is. "Interesting to note that (as of Nov 2023) Google's AI just revealed that NASA's images of the moonlanding were likely faked while the images of the unmanned Chinese lunar lander were real." Sure. Right. Just how far out to sea has your mind set sail?
    6
  30. Well, that would directly contradict their own acknowledgement of Apollo by photographing the landing sites with their Chang'e orbiter. They publicly acknowledged Apollo years ago. It wouldn't make much sense to backtrack.
    6
  31. "This fake video proves how fake moon landing was." Huh? So, the movie "Titanic" showing a fake Titanic proves that the real Titanic never existed. Right? That's basically your logic here? If someone makes a CGI version of [whatever], this means that the real event never happened. Sure. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail. "man cannot go to the moon....how come ?" Because the Apollo program was retired decades ago. All of the necessary equipment and skilled manpower is long gone. But, guess what, dewdrop, there's this program called "Artemis" that was approved by congress in 2019, and they are building back that capability. I mean, do you expect to be able to do the same things you can do before a program is retired? Can you buy a supersonic airliner ticket to fly 100 people for 3000 miles at mach 2 after the Concorde program was shut down? Can you hop into a mach 7 airplane after the 1950s X15 was retired? No? Why are there no mach 7 airplanes today? Why are there no supersonic airliners that can go mach 2 for 3000 miles today? Why is it that the best we can muster today is a little 1-2 person plane that can go mach 1.5 for a couple hundred miles before it needs to slow down? Was the Concorde fake?
    6
  32. The camera was mounted on the MESA (side of the lander). Armstrong later took the camera off of the MESA, put it on the tripod, and moved it to its final resting spot. It's all on video from the other camera inside the lander looking out on the lunar surface. Go watch it.
    6
  33. Is it equally interesting to you that we could fly 100 passengers at mach 2 for 3000 miles across the Atlantic, but can't do it today?
    6
  34. Wow, I don't think I've ever seen such a convincing argument before. Random YouTuber had a neighbor who said it's fake. Yup, I guess that settles it. By the way, I have a bridge for sale. Interested?
    6
  35. Redecule iz peopl read rigth Engish not beleev it happen
    6
  36. So, let me try to understand this. If someone makes a CGI video of one of the Apollo landing sites in 2022, this means that the moon landing was fake in 1969? Huh? So, if someone makes a CGI battle video from the Civil War, this means the Civil war was a hoax? If someone makes a CGI video of the Egyptian pyramids being built, this means that nobody built the pyramids?
    6
  37. Oh, look! Another moon landing denier with a 2nd grader's ability to read and write. What a shocker.
    6
  38. Congratulations on demonstrating that you have absolutely no understanding of the topic, nor do you understand photography.
    6
  39. Good grief. No, dewdrop. NASA never claimed to lose the knowledge. You are watching conspiracy videos that lie to you, and claim that's what NASA says. Meanwhile, you can go to the archives and spend 10 years of your life reading the Apollo documentation, schematics, mission logs, operations manuals, etc., and you'd barely scratch the surface.
    6
  40. Huh? Apollo 15 landed right next to an old lava flow ("river"). They visited the edge of it, and took lots of nice photos.
    6
  41. In 2021, they showed their photos from their Chang'e orbiter of the Apollo 11 landing site, which DID show the lander on the moon. You're a little late with your comment.
    6
  42. It's not a problem that you don't know anything about Apollo. Most people don't. But, is it really too much to ask that you look at a few of the other recent postings before asking the same question asked by 2 million others?
    6
  43. Armstrong pulled a lanyard. Aldrin turned the TV circuit on.
    6
  44. Spare the world your backtracking. We both know you had no idea there were two Orion missions through the belts. Stop pretending.
    6
  45. But, dewdrop, you're the one (in a different thread) who claimed that the USA bribed the Soviets after the cold war ended (1991) to endorse the lunar missions (1969-1972). You were off by TWO DECADES. You also didn't understand laser reflectors or how they worked, but pretended you did. I would hardly consider you capable of judging the authenticity of anything at all.
    6
  46. Let us know when you really want answers to your fake questions, James. For now, you've made it quite clear that you have absolutely no interest in the answers.
    6
  47. Nice job making it completely obvious that you don't want answers to your own questions.
    6
  48. You can see them on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (the official archive).
    6
  49. The camera was installed on the MESA outside the craft before ever leaving Earth.
    6
  50. "There's ZERO evidence of any manned landing" Because the conspiracy videos you're watching don't bother to show you the evidence. Here in reality, we sane people know there are mountains of evidence.
    6