Comments by "rockethead7" (@rockethead7) on "Real Stories" channel.

  1. 16
  2. 10
  3. 7
  4. 6
  5. 6
  6. 6
  7. 6
  8. 5
  9. 5
  10. 5
  11. 5
  12. 5
  13. 5
  14. 5
  15. 5
  16. 5
  17. "Artemis apparently orbited the moon, it did not take any pictures or our previous supposed moon landings" Huh? Do you have any concept of how high the Artemis orbit was? No, it couldn't take photos of the landing sites. And, don't pretend it would matter to you if they did. You already said you won't accept evidence provided by NASA. You're already denying the LRO photos. So, more photos will not matter to you. Don't pretend otherwise. "Outside corroborating evidence" Have you looked for it? Spain took photos of the SIVB fuel dumps around the moon (they had the biggest telescope at that time, which was able to capture the fuel dumps because they spanned out for miles). They also used that telescope to take photos of the Apollo 13 debris field (which, once again, spanned for miles). Japan's JAXA/Selene orbiter took 2D and 3D photos, and they have an entire section of their website dedicated to how they used it to prove Apollo. China's orbiters have seen the Apollo landing sites. You can bounce lasers off of the Apollo reflectors left on the moon, which has been done every single day, from laser ranging facilities all around the world, including enemy countries, since the Apollo 11 astronauts were still on the lunar surface. Dozens of countries tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back using radio telescopes and radar. Spain and Australia received most of the video and audio transmissions from the moon, while pointing their dishes AT THE MOON. Hundreds of backyard amateurs all around the world could tune into the Apollo audio simply by pointing their dishes at the moon. They gathered 850 pounds of lunar material, which has been examined by geologists from all over the world, and those samples have never been exposed to oxygen or moisture (good luck finding that on Earth). The list goes on and on and on. How about asking questions FIRST, then coming to conclusions LATER?
    5
  18. 5
  19. 5
  20. 4
  21. 4
  22. 4
  23. 4
  24. "your assertion concerning the absence of a blast crater" You have no concept of what kind of thrust it would take to dig a crater. Helicopters have far more downward thrust than the lunar lander did. A typical helicopter lands with 10x the vertical thrust. Big ones land with 40x the vertical thrust. No craters, not even when they land on sandy beaches. Why would you expect a crater from the lander? And, why do you suppose there aren't any aerospace engineers that agree with you? "or a disturbance of any reasonable metric" Well, there was plenty of dust blown, and it shows when you look at the close-up photos. It's pretty clear that rocket engines were running. But, if you think there are some "reasonable metrics," then go publish a science paper on those metrics. Submit it for peer review. What are you waiting for? "a departure from reality and common sense." So, the "common sense" is to believe that the world's aerospace engineers can't spot these "problems" you think you've spotted. And, people like you, with no knowledge in this field, are the ones who are the real experts? Really? That makes "common sense" to you? "pressure that the F-1 engine would create decending to the lunar surface" The F1, huh? With 1.5 million pounds of thrust each. For a lander that weighed about 2500 to 2700 pounds at landing. Um, dewdrop, the only thing that would be happening if they fired an F1 with a lander attached (I dare not even say a lander with an F1 attached, because, at that scale, it's a rocket with a craft attached, not a craft with a rocket attached), is that the astronauts would be crushed from the force of acceleration, and the only direction they'd be going is straight up. "would have washed the surface underneath the LEM kicking up dust and debris everywhere." OK, you've got me there. Yes, if they had an engine with 1.5 million pounds of thrust, sure, now maybe you might expect a blast crater or something. "No evidence of this exists under any of the LEM's for all 6 Apollo missions. That's the proof" Sorry, but your "proof" fails miserably. I mean, seriously here, did you REALLY think you spotted this "gotcha" that not a single aerospace engineer on the face of the Earth has been able to figure out? Really? C'mon man. The F1? It couldn't even be throttled. It was 100% thrust, or turned off. Those were the only two settings. And, have you seen one of those things in person? The engine bell alone was 12 feet wide and 20 feet tall. Just the bell alone. That doesn't include the rest of the rocket. You think that huge rocket was on the bottom of the landers? "okay, fair enough the LEM rocket may not have been an F-1" And, yet, this doesn't give you pause. You think you understand more about rocketry than the entire planet's aerospace engineers. Yet, when you don't even know what rocket was used, you don't even step back and realize that you're out of your lane. Nope. You continue to believe that, somehow, the entire planet's experts are wrong, and you're right... while you confuse 1.5 million pounds of thrust with 2.5 thousand pounds of thrust. You are off by a factor of 600x. And, this doesn't even cause you to skip a beat. Nope, it's still full speed ahead, denial denial denial, accusing thousands of people of participating in a fraud... while you can't identify the difference between an F1 engine and a lunar lander's engine. "since it was never disclosed as to what engine it used" Ridiculous babble. When will you ever understand to just stop? Why? Why would you EVER say such a silly thing? What possible reason? There are terabytes of documents outlining the exact specifications of the engine. But, beyond that, just walk into the Smithsonian and look at it. They have F1 engines on display. They have the lunar modules engines on display. They're clearly labeled. Don't sit here and pretend they were never disclosed. This is beyond nonsense, and you're just making excuses. "i just assumed it was the F-1" Why? "nevertheless NASA did disclose that it produced 10k lbs. of thrust, can we agree on that?" Yes, 10,500 max. But, that engine (on the descent stage) could be throttled. The F1 couldn't. And, upon landing, it was down to about 2500 to 2700 pounds of thrust. Go take the cross section of the engine bell, and do the math yourself on the PSI. (Hint: it's less pressure per square inch than a human footprint.) "for ot not to have completely washed the surface below it is an impossibility." See what I mean, dewdrop? Do you understand why nobody can respect such gibberish? You just demonstrated time and again that you don't even have an entry level understanding of the topic. Not even the basics. And, you certainly don't understand this either. Dewdrop, before you go running around, accusing thousands of people of being criminals who would spend the rest of their lives in prison if you were correct, how about asking a few questions first? How about getting an education? How about realizing that you don't actually know anything? No? Accuse first? And, I was going to say that you might learn something second. But, I seriously doubt you really want to learn anything.
    4
  25. 4
  26. 4
  27. 4
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30. 4
  31. 4
  32. 4
  33. 4
  34. 4
  35. 4
  36. 4
  37. 4
  38. 4
  39. 4
  40. 4
  41. 4
  42. 4
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3
  51. Pfttt. You've claimed that the surface is identical to somewhere in Hawaii, but, no matter how many times I ask you for those coordinates, you never reply. As for "even China cannot find and evidence of the Apollo missions": == First of all, that's wrong. They said their lunar orbiters DID confirm Apollo. But, beyond that, let me guess... you're quoting from this article, correct? QUOTE FROM ARTICLE: "Top officials of the Chinese Space Program have come out this week and expressed their skepticism that the American Moon landings ever happened, reports the Beijing Daily Express. More than 2,000 high-ranking officials of the Chinese Communist Party have signed a petition this week asking explanations from the American government concerning the American Moon landings after doubts arose that the Apollo Moon landings ever happened. These allegations have come up after recent analysis of pictures taken from the Chinese Chang’e-4 probe allegedly found no traces of the American Moon landings existing on the Moon. Several high-ranking members of the Chinese Communist Party even stated publicly that these latest findings proved without a doubt that the Moon landings were an “elaborately orchestrated hoax to fool the world about America’s space program capabilities”." END QUOTE Is that the article you're talking about? (Yes, obviously it is.) You conspiratards are hilarious. That article has been touted by conspiratards left and right, jumping for joy. But, the problem is, the article came from World News Daily Report. That's a SATIRE website. If memory serves, that article came out simultaneously about a World News Daily Report story about a pack of housecats that were going from house to house at night, breaking in and stealing jewelry. (Get it? "Cat burglars"? Funny?) All of the articles on that site are SATIRE/COMEDY. Yet, you conspiratards reference it anyway. It's truly amazing to behold people as gullible as you. You people will believe ANYTHING if it aligns with your delusions. ANYTHING. If Saturday Night Live did a news skit that said something like this, you'd fall for that hook line and sinker also. You people don't even recognize a parody when you see it.
    3
  52. 3
  53. 3
  54. 3
  55. 3
  56.  @ornanongsavage8688  YOU SAID: "Not asking questions stating facts" == Pfftttt. I've been saying for quite some time now that when you conspiratards ask questions, you're ingenuine. I've been saying that you people only PRETEND to ask questions. Now, to prove my point, you have asked many many many questions in this thread and others, yet, now, you don't even remember that you asked them. You literally can't recall that you were asking questions, because, all along, you were only pretending to ask questions. Now you don't even remember asking them. And, you've ignored the answers. YOU SAID: "NASA cant go to the Moon today" == They don't claim to be able to go today. YOU SAID: "the same applied 50 plus years ago, impossible," == No. It was possible 50 years ago because they had all of the hardware and programs to do it. They no longer have those things, since they've all been retired. YOU SAID: "but since you are one of their stooges trying to convince the public otherwise. Maybe you should stop spanking your mouse, it's not good for your eyesight." == You are truly out of your mind. And, I doubt you're even reading anything. All you're doing is spitting in people's faces. You're accusing thousands of people of being criminal frauds who would get a lifetime in prison for the crimes you're accusing them of committing. And, you do this to try to compensate for your own utter failures. Rather than bettering yourself, you seek to drag the rest of the world down to your level. Pathetic.
    3
  57. 3
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 3
  65. 3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 3
  69. 3
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. YOU SAID: "Just curious, can duct tape withstand the 200°+ heat generated by the sun without melting the glue? " == That's not at all how temperature works. I mean, sure, you see people saying that when trying to explain the temperatures in one sentence or less. But, in actuality, physics doesn't work that way, and it's not something that can be explained in one sentence. The shortest I can explain this is just telling you that a vacuum has no temperature. Temperature is a measurement of the energy state of electrons in their respective atoms/molecules. In a vacuum, there are no atoms/molecules. (OK, there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum, but, for all practical purposes, it's close enough to zero for conversation.) So, anyway, the sun isn't generating temperature. The sun generates photons. Photons can increase the energy state of the electrons, of course. But, the tape and glue are not immersed in 200+ degree temperatures. That's not what that means. I can explain this at great length, and there are entire textbooks you can read about thermodynamics that explain this much further than can be explained in a YouTube comment. But, short of that, I'll just tell you that there's a reason you won't find any physics PhDs anywhere on Earth who make these conspiracy claims about the temperatures experienced during Apollo... they understand the actual thermodynamics that the conspiracy nuts do not. YOU SAID: "Also, how is it possible for controlling the direction of the lem by combustion rockets including take off" == You just answered your own question. They used rockets to control the direction. For ascent, they had a non-gimbaled main rocket that propelled the craft with about 3500 pounds of thrust. They had 16 small thruster rockets with about 100 pounds of thrust each, which controlled the orientation/direction of the craft. YOU SAID: "which, according to the footage provided, also caused disturbance on the moon and caused the flag to nearly be blown away." == Yes. I fail to understand your point. YOU SAID: "All this occurred in a vacuum of space?" == I mean, good grief. Rockets work in space, despite the recent trend of conspiracy nutbags to pretend rockets cannot work in space. Rockets bring their own fuel and oxidizer with them. This isn't like a jet engine, which only brings fuel, and uses the oxygen in the surrounding air to function. Rockets are different. Rockets bring fuel, AND oxidizer. So, yes, the fuel and oxidizer burn inside the engine bell. The resulting explosive expansion of gas being spewed out one direction of the engine bell causes thrust in the opposite direction. Basic entry level Newtonian mechanics. 3rd Law of Motion. And, again, why do conspiracy nuts who do not understand this believe that no actual expert on Earth understand it either? I mean, it's not a crime not to understand physics. That's fine. There are a million topics I don't understand either. But, I'm not going around and claiming that all doctors on the planet are wrong about medicine. I'm not going around claiming that all lawyers on the planet are wrong about the law. I'm not going around claiming that all historians on the planet are wrong about history. Yet, for some reason, tons of moon conspiracy nutbags feel perfectly comfortable claiming that all rocket scientists on the planet are wrong about how rockets work. And, yet, not a single one of those conspiracy nuts has set foot inside a university classroom on the topic. It's pure insanity. YOU SAID: "I'm certain I'll be blasted by true believers of the space program" == Good grief. It's not about being "a believer" (as if it's a matter of just listening to what you're told without ever questioning anything). No. It's about understanding the science. It's about understanding the technology. It's about understanding the history. It's about understanding the evidence. I have never met a single moon hoax nut who understands any of those things. Moon hoax nuts think they're "skeptical." But, they're not. They don't understand what true skepticism is. Moon hoax nuts think that skepticism simply means rejecting what they're told. But, that's not what skepticism is. Skepticism is a method of looking at the evidence, analyzing the data, understanding the topics/sciences involved, and drawing logical conclusions. YOU SAID: "but my questions are simply designed and put forth as truth seeking and in no way mockery" == Frankly, if you are so painfully unaware of how a rocket engine works, such that you think a rocket cannot work in space, you seriously do not know enough about the topic to even question it. Someone who knows zero about medicine is in no position to dispute what a doctor says is the correct treatment for [whatever] disease. And, yet, for whatever the reason, Apollo deniers who know absolutely nothing about rocketry or physics or engineering... feel perfectly comfortable saying that every expert on the planet is wrong about their area of expertise. There's a reason that no rocket scientists are making claims that the moon landings were faked. There's a reason that no physicists are making claims that the moon landings were faked. There's a reason that no aerospace engineers are making claims that the moon landings were faked. Nope, the people who claim the moon landings were faked are people who have absolutely zero expertise in the topics at hand. And, don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that blind acceptance of everything you're told is a good thing. Of course not. Blind acceptance is a bad thing. But, when you know absolutely nothing about a topic, you're in no position to say that the entire world's experts in those topics are entirely wrong. EDUCATION about Apollo comes FIRST, before anybody is in any position to deny Apollo. You don't get to say every doctor on the planet is wrong for prescribing antibiotics to cure a disease, if you don't even know what a disease is, nor what an antibiotic is, or how it works. That would be just talking from utter ignorance.
    3
  77.  @lorichet  Keysing wasn't an engineer. He never provided technical support for anything. He was a document guy, and not a very good one. The rover's schematics are readily available. However, they had less than a year to build them, so, there was more of a "straight to build" attitude, and there aren't quite as many documents as there are for all of the rest of the craft, but, there are still plenty, especially the very detailed schematics of the electronics on the rover. Nothing was lost. Everything there ever was is still around. Sorry, but this "same background" nonsense just shows how little you understand about photography. Yes, distant mountains in the background will look virtually identical when all you're doing is moving short distances in the foreground. The same happens on Earth. And, the rest of what is in that video is pure gibberish also. You don't know what you're talking about (as usual), and neither do the makers of the videos you're watching. Remember how far you've drifted from your original assertion, that the rover couldn't even fit? Did you forget that? You can see videos and photos of it being mounted to the lander. You can review the design specifications to your heart's desire. Yet, you can't manage to find a few photos? Huh? And, what didn't you understand about the fact that your favorite video claims there was only one hinge point, when there were actually two? Doesn't this tell you that the maker of that video has no idea what he's talking about? How about when he claimed in that video that they used 10,000 pounds of thrust on landing? Doesn't that tell you how backward he is? You clearly have no ability to judge good information from bad. Your only criteria for accepting or rejecting what you see is whether or not it aligns with your predetermined conclusions. Facts do not matter to you.
    3
  78. Let's recap, shall we? You thought the rover didn't fit into the lander, and that the thousands of engineers who designed the rovers and landers all overlooked this "gotcha" somehow. You claimed that you couldn't find any photos of the rover attached to the lander, despite that they're extremely easy to find, and I even gave you the catalog number of one of them. Your only source of information consists of videos made by nuts and outright con men. You think a writer who left Rocketdyne long before any Apollo rockets ever lifted off is a "whistleblower," and you label him as an "engineer," despite that he holds no certifications of any kind in that field, and the term "service engineer" is nothing more than a glamorous title for a fixit guy. You keep thinking everything is lost, when all of the schematics and videos and scientific data are readily available. And, you think this because you watched some videos that talked about the two missing BACKUP tapes from one mission, and have distorted that into somehow believing that all tapes are lost from all missions. You keep referring to a video made by a guy who thinks the landers were at full throttle when they touched down (10,000 pounds of thrust), which is absolutely ridiculous, demonstrating that he knows even less about Apollo than you do. You are unaware of the hammocks in the craft, and thought they had to sleep standing up. Every single comment you make is an utter butchery of the sciences involved. And, yet, you think you know more about this topic than the entire world's aerospace engineers, all of whom cannot spot these trivial (and wrong) "gotcha" moments you regurgitate from videos made for gullible people. Get a clue, none of those videos you're watching are correct. Those videos exist BECAUSE they are wrong. If any of these people had anything valid to offer, the last place you'd find it is in a video. They'd be submitting their calculations and observations to science and engineering journals. THAT is how you identify these "gotchas," not by making videos that undergo no scrutiny whatsoever. They make videos BECAUSE they know their gibberish cannot pass the scrutiny of the scientific method. And, you're gobbling it up like it's Christmas dinner. Sorry, but when you have to grasp at little editing errors in a 3rd party documentary, and look to a "whistleblower" who left the company before the first Apollo test rocket even launched, and who was a writer, not an engineer, seriously, you've got NOTHING.
    3
  79. 3
  80. 3
  81. 3
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84. 3
  85. 3
  86. 3
  87. 3
  88. 3
  89. 3
  90. "How with the latest supercomputer" Huh? I mean, sure, the latest computers are better than the 1960s/1970s computers, but, so what? Newer computers don't make rockets go to the moon any easier than the computers at the time. I mean, do you ask how they made phone calls in the 1960s without today's computers? Do you ask how the 1940s era B29 Superfortress was able to use its analog computer targeting system without today's modern digital computers? What EXACTLY do you think a modern computer would do to make rockets go to the moon, that the 1960s computers couldn't do? "and SpaceX" Huh? The flailing rocket manufacturer run by a crackpot? You think SpaceX is going to make people go back to the moon FASTER than if they had chosen any of the other contenders? Boeing? Blue? Lockheed? Northrop Grumman? Frankly, I was absolutely amazed (not in a good way) that SpaceX was selected against such far superior options. I mean, if you're interested in conspiracies, you're chasing down the wrong hole with Apollo. The real conspiracy is how such a train wreck of a rocket company was able to win the contract over real rocket companies. "we cannot repeat this landing of the moon." Well, it remains to be seen about whether SpaceX is capable of making their Starship and Superheavy actually work. But, you do realize that, yes, Artemis is funded and proceeding, right? "cheap sweatshop make in HK raincoat to protect them" What in the world are you even talking about? Do you even know? "Even shocking is that raincoat suits that protect them could not even be reproduced today." Huh? Why not? But, who would want to? The Apollo missions only lasted on the lunar surface for a maximum of 74 hours, only about 22 of which were when wearing the suits outside the craft. So, that's basically all the suits were designed for: 22 hours of real use. Now, they want Artemis to be on the lunar surface for about a month, in the polar region, with entirely different mission parameters. Yes, a new suit is required. That doesn't mean that the A7L didn't work. What in the world are you talking about?
    3
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. So, it's your position that they faked it to fool the Soviets? Pffttt. Please explain how the Soviets were fooled? What exactly were the Soviets picking up in their radar and in their radio telescopes, then? You do realize that the Soviets sent Luna 15 (unmanned) to the moon to wait for Apollo 11 to arrive there, tracking both craft the entire time, right? You do realize that they triggered Luna 15 to land on the moon while the Apollo astronauts were on the surface, right? Their intention was to race Apollo 11 back home with the first lunar samples, trying to steal the spotlight. But, it was a rushed mission, and it crashed into a lunar mountain while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the surface. So, it failed. But, nonetheless, they were watching with their radar and radio telescopes, and listening in on the mission audio while their dishes were pointed AT THE MOON. How did the USA manage to fake all of those radar and audio radio signals? Can you explain it? What about the dozens of other countries that tracked all Apollo missions with radar and/or radio telescopes? Spain, Australia, Madagascar, Canary Islands, Guam, Bahamas, England, Wales, Turks&Caicos, Ascension Island, etc. The list goes on. How did Spain manage to use their telescope (the largest that existed at the time) to photograph the Apollo 13 debris field, or the SIVB boosters' fuel dumps? How does Arizona State University's LRO camera manage to send back hundreds upon hundreds of photos of all of the Apollo landing sites, from every possible sun angle, for the past 13 years? Are hundreds of modern day ASU professors and students "in on it" too? I could go on for hours and hours. Do you know any of this stuff? Or, do you know absolutely positively nothing about this topic, and you like to pretend online, to make yourself feel better about having such a completely failed life?
    2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. Why'd you disappear, John? Cliff already outlined why each and every one of your objections is laughably wrong. But, I'll add: "250 degrees Fahrenheit to negative 150" WRONG. The astronauts were never there for those extremes. You're talking about the peaks in the lunar afternoon and lunar overnight... neither of which were relevant to Apollo. All Apollo missions landed early in the lunar morning, and lifted off in the very same morning, when temperatures were nowhere near what you're complaining about. You clearly don't realize that a "day" (sunrise to sunrise) on the moon is about a month on Earth. "radiation 200x than that of the surface of earth" Um, ok, what kind? And, how much would penetrate the silver/aluminum canisters? I mean, if my umbrella can block a drop of rain, are you going to argue that it can't block 200 drops? Do you believe that Kodak and Hasselblad didn't understand as much about their own film/cameras that you do? "lead core batteries" WRONG. They didn't use lead core batteries, dewdrop. They used silver-zinc batteries. Not one bit of lead. You don't know what you're talking about. "energy load draws on the batteries in the backpacks would drain in less than 10 minutes" WRONG. Says who? You? What in the world do you even know about it? You thought they were lead, and didn't even know what they were comprised of. How much could you possibly know about it that all of the engineers who built them didn't know? "factor transmission to earth" They didn't transmit to Earth, dewdrop. They only transmitted VHF to the landers or rovers, which then relayed the signal via unified S-band. "and heating and cooling in the suit" WRONG. There was no heating. There was only cooling. You don't know anything about this topic. Why are you pretending you do? "How exactly does an astronaut survive temperatures from +250 to -150?" By not being exposed to +250 or -150. Again, you don't even know what time they landed, and you're painfully unaware of the length of a "day" on the moon. Also, surprise surprise, dewdrop, but a typical fireman suit can withstand 1000 degrees. A good one can withstand 2000. Yet, you think an Apollo suit can't do 250? Are you going to run around and say all firemen are fake, because they can't wear suits that will protect them from fires? "To pressurize a suit to atmospheric pressure" WRONG. They never pressurized the suits to that level. It would have been extremely difficult to work in that amount of pressure, and, they'd suffer from oxygen toxicity if the pressure was as high as that. The suits were pressurized to about 3PSI only, not atmospheric pressure. It's easier to operate in the suit, and you don't get oxygen toxicity effects. Once again, you know nothing. "require zero leaks" Why? All of the suits leaked a little. Who cares? They even had pressure release valves. And, they were also venting off the spent gasses from the porous plate sublimators. What difference would a small leak make? "Those suit zippers must have been magical" Dewdrop, the seals were in the layers beneath the zippers. The zippers merely secured the inside layers. You have absolutely no knowledge of this topic either. And, it's an insult to the thousands of people who worked on Apollo, as if none of them could figure out how to make a suit. Oh, but YOU know better, right? "you should study" How? By watching the same nonsense videos you've been watching, made by people who know the same amount you do (ZERO)?
    2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. YOU SAID: "So who took the pictures of the capsule leaving the Moon they left some one up there? They attached a camera to the buggy you say?" == Yes. There were actually two cameras attached to the rovers. One was a television camera, one was a 16mm film camera. The television camera was in front on the passenger side. The 16mm film camera was directly behind the television camera. Once mounted, they never removed the television camera from the rover. All three rovers still have their television cameras still attached, and have been on the moon for almost 50 years now. The 16mm film cameras could be detached and reattached to the rovers at will, and could just be operated hand-held. And, yes, the took that camera home. YOU SAID: "How did they get the photos from the camera?" == The 16mm film camera "photos" (film video) had to wait until they got home to have the film developed. But, you asked about leaving the moon (liftoff). That camera was now placed inside the module, looking out the LMP window. YOU SAID: "They beamed it up to the module" == Now you're switching back to talking about the television camera. They "beamed it" (radio signal) directly to Earth from the rover. Anyway, you seem to be juggling back and forth between the TV camera and the film camera. So, it's difficult to answer your questions, when you don't seem to understand what you're even asking. But, yeah, film camera = film that was developed when they got back home. TV camera = radio, coming from the lunar rover. YOU SAID: "Star Trek stuff." == Pfftt. It's just radio. Not that complicated. YOU SAID: "NASA admits they cannot get a human past the Van Allen radiation. See the vid that's reality." == Good gods, did you even watch the video you linked? What's wrong with you? Forget the [wrong] annotations that the conspiracy crowd added to the video, and pay attention to what Kelly Smith says in the video. He said that the electronics would be vulnerable to the Van Allen belts, and they needed to add shielding, and test the craft in space. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Good grief. First of all, they did the same thing with Apollo 6, you know. They wanted to test it through the Van Allen belts and back, to make sure everything worked, before putting people inside. In the 2014 video you linked, Kelly Smith was explaining that they wanted to do the same basic thing, and test Orion the same way they tested Apollo 6, by sending it up into the Van Allen belts and back, before putting people inside. What is it with you conspiratards that you object to this? You people act as if they shouldn't test new things before putting people inside!!! (????) But, the irony is that if they didn't test, you'd be saying the exact same thing. Option 1) "We want to test Orion in the Van Allen belts before putting people inside." How do you conspiratards reply? "FAKE!!! They already tested it on Apollo, right? Do they want me to believe they need to test it again with a new craft??? FAKE!!!" Option 2) "We don't want to test Orion in the Van Allen belts before putting people inside." How would you reply? "FAKE!!! Orion is a new craft with new modern electronics that are far more sensitive to radiation than the Apollo computers. Do they want me to believe that they don't want to test it before putting people inside??? FAKE!!!" Either way, you were going to scream "FAKE!!!" So, what's your point? Why do you allude to videos that make absolutely no difference whatsoever on the claptrap you believe? Hey, dummy, they tested Orion in the Van Allen belts after that video was made. It passed the test. So, why are you bringing it up now? YOU SAID: "then have a bash at this vid made back in that time period, we haven't been to the Moon landings where made on Earth." == WHAT??? WHAT?!?!?!?!??! Is there something wrong with you?? Good grief. You just posted a link to a little spoof video made by Fabrice Mathieu, who wasn't even born when people went to the moon. Yet, you say it was made "back in that time period"?? WHAT?!?!? Did you even read the credits? Did you bother looking it up? How far down the toilet have you flushed your brain away, in order to believe that video you linked is "real"??? Good grief. I mean, I've seen some stupid things in my time, but, the fact that people like you will cling to such obvious spoofs, thinking they are REAL... man, there's really no hope for you. Given your level of gullibility, and let's face it here, you're obviously not the brightest bulb, here's what you need to do: You need to stop thinking for yourself (something I almost never recommend, because I usually recommend that people learn to think for themselves, but, in your case....). You need to live your life. You need to be as happy as you can be. So, you need to forget about conspiracies that you clearly know nothing about. And, you need to just go out, earn some money, make a living, and try to be happy. And, you need to give all of your money to a trusted family member who thinks straighter than you think. Why? Because, with your intelligence (I use that word very liberally), and your gullibility, I promise you, you are doomed to eventually giving away all of your money to a con-man. It's going to happen sooner or later. People as gullible as you are, are doomed to eventually give it all away. So, someone else needs to manage your money. I say this for your own good. Give your money to someone else for safe keeping, someone very trustworthy, and let all financial decisions be made by that person. You are not equipped to handle it yourself.
    2
  116. 2
  117. 2
  118. 2
  119. 2
  120. 2
  121. 2
  122. 2
  123. 2
  124. You've made some extremely hilarious posts before (basically all of them). But, this one is just off the charts. You don't think you can get a radio signal to/from the moon because of the Earth's magnetic field? Pffttt. First of all, magnetic fields don't affect radio. Secondly, you can go stick a dish on your house (or, in your case, the trailer park), aim it at a geosync satellite about 25,000 miles away, and send/receive internet, or get hundreds of TV channels, etc. The Earth's magnetic field does nothing. There are over 400 satellites in geosync orbit, using radio every single day. Thirdly, you clearly have never heard of the backyard HAM radio operators that do moon-bounces every single day. They aim their dishes (or Yagi) at the moon, and use the moon like a huge radio reflector, and can talk to people around the world. This has been done since long before Apollo. There are at least a thousand videos that will tell you the exact radio to buy, exact dishes to buy (2-3 feet in diameter is enough), and how much power they use (most people use around 1000 or 1500 watts to do it, but, with the right equipment, they do it with as little as 10 or 20 watts). So, your notion that radio doesn't reach to/from the moon is immediately dismissed because it's been done virtually every single day by backyard amateurs since at least a decade before Apollo even existed. Good grief. Everything else you've ever said is wrong, but, this one really takes the cake. You clearly have absolutely no understanding of radar or radio telescopes. None whatsoever. You can jam those signals, but, there's no way to "relay" them to confuse which direction they're coming from... at least not with regard to a dish that receives the original signal. Those only work in the direction they're pointed.
    2
  125. It won't post my reply, so, I'll make this shorter: "show me the telemetry." Why? You'll just reject it anyway. You know so little about the topic that you didn't even ask for which type of telemetry. Video is telemetry. You're watching some of it right now. No matter what I provide you, you'll reject it anyway. And, you refuse to answer any of my questions, why should I go do your homework for you? "you cannot relay a radio telescope signal but now what you're saying is they do" No, I said that there's no concept of "relaying" these signals to the original dishes that receive the original signals, because those only work on line-of-site. Obviously, anything can be relayed/repeated. But, for the original radio telescopes and radar signals, about all you can do is jam them, you can't relay or falsify them. "internet goes through cables under the ocean all the way to Europe from the USA." So? What does that have to do with radar and radio? "The TV dish you put on top of your trailer or my house is just an antenna. It picks up signal from a radio telescope." Huh? What ARE you talking about? Do you think the satellites used for DirecTV or Dish Network or whatever other provider have radio telescopes on them? What? You obviously don't even know what a radio telescope is. Good grief. "It's relayed from relay stations." No. You aim your dish at a point in the sky, and it receives those signals from the satellite. If you're saying that the satellite itself is a relay station, well, sure. But, that's irrelevant to the topic. "You don't know where the signal is coming from." It's coming from the satellite your dish is aimed at!!!! "It can all be done on ground based." No, it cannot. Good grief. Why do you think you know anything about this topic? You just got done asserting that radio couldn't get to the moon and back. That's how little you know about this topic, despite that backyard amateurs have been bouncing radio off of the moon every single day for around 70 years. But, this doesn't make a dent. Most sane people would wake up and realize they really don't understand a topic, when they get something so fundamentally and laughably wrong as that. But, not you. Nope. You get something this amazingly wrong, and it makes absolutely no difference to you. You're just going to keep pretending to understand things you don't, no matter how many times you're proven to not know anything about the topic.
    2
  126. 2
  127. 2
  128. 2
  129. Let's recap, shall we? - You think geologists agree with you about Apollo rocks coming from meteorites. Yet, you cannot name a single paper written by a single geologist author, in any recognized geology journal, anywhere on Earth, that says any such thing. Quite to the contrary, there are thousands of papers written by thousands of geologists and geology students that say the opposite. - You think that no geologist can tell the difference between all of the lunar rocks and dust brought back on Apollo, vs. something that was "circular diamond blade sawed" from meteorites. You refuse to answer about how they could ever replicate anorthosites and basalts and the kind of dust found in the lunar samples, vs. anything you could cut from a meteorite. - You believe that oxygen and moisture do not penetrate inside meteorites. (Sigh.) - You insist that radar tracking of the Apollo missions by dozens of countries, including enemies, can be bluffed by ground-based systems "relaying" the signals. You refuse to answer how the Doppler effect of craft going thousands of miles per hour can be magically replicated by some sort of ground station, nor how any such signal relay would ever find its way into dozens of dishes around the world at the same time. - You claimed that radio signals cannot reach the moon and back because of the magnetic field around the Earth. I pointed out several ways to know that's completely wrong, including the fact that backyard amateurs bounce radio signals off of the moon every single day for the past 70 years. You will not acknowledge, and instead, you express even more gibberish that doesn't make sense, and demonstrates that you don't know anything about the topic. - You think that satellite TV companies have installed radio telescopes on those satellites, and those radio telescopes are what sends the signals to a dish mounted to someone's house. Not only is that false, because no satellites have any radio telescopes on them, and you've got this entire concept completely backward, but also because such radio telescopes would completely defeat how those satellites actually work. You clearly do not even know what a radio telescope is. - You think that it's simply not possible to track Apollo missions, because the Earth rotates out of view of the moon every 12 hours or so. I asked you to explain what in the world those countries were tracking for those 12 hours at a time, if not Apollo, and why none of the thousands of engineers and PhDs who developed and built the tracking networks failed to realize it wouldn't work. You refused to answer, beyond claiming that there's no way to know where the radar signals were coming from (though, you seem to not understand that the entire point of the radar network was to know exactly where the bounce-backs were coming from, and that's exactly how radar works). - You made some sort of reference to the cables under the ocean that connect countries' internet. But, you refuse to answer any questions about why that's relevant to radio and radar. It's as if you're running off to some unknown source to come up with answers to challenges, but, you don't even understand the answers yourself. What in the world do modern underwater internet cables have to do with tracking Apollo? - You refuse to answer any questions or challenges, period. Yet, after all of that, you still believe you have the higher ground here?
    2
  130. 2
  131. 2
  132. 2
  133. 2
  134. 2
  135. 2
  136. 2
  137. 2
  138. 2
  139. 2
  140. 2
  141. 2
  142. 2
  143. 2
  144. 2
  145. 2
  146. 2
  147. 2
  148. 2
  149. 2
  150. 2
  151. 2
  152. 2
  153. 2
  154. 2
  155. 2
  156. 2
  157. 2
  158. 2
  159. 2
  160. 2
  161. 2
  162. 2
  163. I realize you weren't replying to me (you gave up on that, because all you ever did was duck and dodge anything I wrote, and stuck your head in the sand). But, in answer to your reply to the other guy: "None of that is proof of an ACTUAL moon landing." What type of evidence would you expect/accept? "you are relying on their pics/photos/videos/man made documents/statements/radio /media/govt agencies (both domestic and international/academia/personal testimonies/so called "experts" etc." Um, yeah. If that's not good enough, what type of evidence ever could be good enough for you? It seems like you're basically saying that there isn't even a way to have the evidence you require. "all your info is more than capable of being rendered false/corrupted/misleading/altered/propagandized/conspiratorialized." Sure. But, to reject all of that in favor of a "hoax," you have to acknowledge that such a "hoax" would require the cooperation of numerous countries (including enemy countries), tens of thousands of people, and would need to persist decade after decade as administrations come and go. Like, for example, a few months ago, as he outlined, India released its images from their lunar orbiter, showing Apollo's landers on the moon, exactly in the same places as Arizona State University's LRO camera indicated, and China's orbiter indicated, and Japan's orbiter indicated. Could India have decided to participate in "the hoax" also? Well, ok, sure. But, this just adds more and more and more people/countries that would need to participate. Why would they do this, 50+ years later? Wouldn't a lot of those countries love to show it was fake, if they could? "the moon landing is a cult following" Huh? Is this a joke? There are 72 space agencies on the planet, staffed directly and indirectly with the virtual entirety of the world's experts in aerospace engineering for manned or unmanned space flight, none of which have ever said a single word like you're saying. And, you think THAT is the cult, and you're not part of the "cult" here? "that you can easily come out of if you can comprehend deception and things that can be altered/corrupted" Again, what evidence would you even accept and expect? If dozens of countries and tens of thousands of people over decades of time, all confirming Apollo, in several different ways, isn't enough for you, what ever could be enough for you?
    2
  164. 2
  165. 2
  166. 2
  167. 2
  168. 2
  169. 2
  170. 2
  171. 2
  172. 1) Musk is only serious about 1/2 of his statements, and only correct about 1/20th of them. How he managed to get a single spacecraft in orbit is beyond me. And, I have no idea why Tesla's stock price is high enough for them to buy every auto manufacturer on the planet. It's a cult. And, basically, they'd need to make about $2 million profit on each car they sell in order to justify the stock price. I don't know if I should blame Musk for his false inflation and deceptive tactics to boost the stock prices, or if I should blame investors for ever thinking a non-profitable electric car company is worth a trillion dollars. But, anyway, that aside, the underlying point is that Musk's Mars visions are nothing but science fiction garbage. His plans CANNOT work in practicality. Starship has no hope of doing what he says it can for Mars missions. And, I am continuously shocked that NASA selected them for using that monstrosity as a lunar lander. But, at least it IS technically feasible to land that thing on the moon. Not exactly wise, but, at least possible. For that thing to colonize Mars with 50-100 passengers per ride? Um, no. 2) You're not going to see any moon colonies in our lifetime. Apollo was massively expensive, and could barely struggle to put 12 people on the moon for a few hours each. Entire bases, and years of life support supplies, structures to build for planting crops, producing energy, etc., are millions of times bigger/heavier than Apollo was. The landers for Apollo barely had the payload of a little lunar car, and a few experiments, and life support for about 75 hours on the moon. If you want to build permanent colonies there, you'd be talking about hundreds of SaturnV-sized launches, just to get started. Given that Artemis was funded at $30 billion (I'm sure it'll inflate in the coming years), you'd be lucky to duplicate Apollo's limitations, let alone something bigger, let alone find congress/public willing to foot the bill for 1000x more money to build bases there.
    2
  173. 2
  174. 2
  175. 2
  176. 2
  177. 2
  178. 2
  179. 2
  180. 2
  181. 2
  182. Deucemonkey 23 Herb Castro Your perception of the Van Allen belts is an utter butchery of what Kelly Smith was saying in the video you're talking about. He merely said that they needed to test the shielding on Orion in order to be sure the computers and people would be able to function/survive in the Van Allen belts. That video was made in 2014, and yes, NASA tested Orion's shielding later that same year, and it passed the tests. Yet, still, to this day, moon hoax nutbags are still quoting that video as some sort of assault on Apollo. It's nonsense. Kelly Smith was never claiming that Apollo didn't go through the belts. He said that Orion's shielding needed to be tested. They tested Apollo's craft going through the belts on Apollo 6, unmanned, much in the same spirit, before they ever put humans through the belts. So, yes, a new craft, with new mission parameters, different computers, yes, they needed to test the shielding again. I mean, for the sake of comparison, nobody ever questions if a brand new aircraft with brand new wings needs to have those new wings tested before certifying the craft for passengers. Nobody ever says, "hey, why did you need to test the wings for the Boeing 747, when you had perfectly good wings on the WWI biplanes?" Yet, that's exactly what the conspiracy nutbags are saying about the Orion shielding, as if they should just use the exact same shielding that Apollo used 50 years earlier (different craft, different missions planned, different computers, etc.). It's insanity. Conspiracy nutbags are insane.
    2
  183. 2
  184. Note, I particularly love the part when you quoted my own words back to me: You wrote: Quote: "Do you really expect me to go through 125 photos and give you a list of clear ones? " (quoting my words back to me) Then, you replied: Quote: "Not a list, just one. One single photo would do." Now, the problem with this new lie of yours (among your repeated parade of lies throughout many different comment threads), is that you later claimed: Quote: "What catalog numbers? I have not seen any catalog numbers from you." See, the issue is that the catalog numbers I posted were in the very same message as the "Do you really expect me to go through 125 photos and give you a list of clear ones?" quote. So, you don't get to sit here and pretend that you could see part of the message, but couldn't see the rest of it (the part with the catalog numbers). You are merely stalling, distracting, ducking and dodging, like you normally do, throughout all of your threads. When presented with evidence, all you've EVER done is distract and dodge, switch topics, shift the goalposts, whatever. And, this is just another dishonest attempt to do the exact same thing. They took 125 photos of the stars using the Carruthers camera, mounted to a tripod. They took some using the Hasselblads also, but, those were hand-held cameras, and taking photos of stars requires very long exposure times. This causes very blurry images, because a human cannot hold a camera steady by hand for 20-30 seconds at a time. You don't even know which mission is which, and which camera is which. I told you to look at the Carruthers ultraviolet photos. I gave you catalog numbers of those Carruthers UV photos that showed non-blurry stars. I explained why some are blurry, and some are not, because they wanted to vary the exposure times across the 125 photos, some shorter, some longer, to get a really good sampling of all types of photos (exactly like any sane person would expect). And, I seriously doubt you looked at any of them, not even the blurry ones. You probably saw some of the blurry ones from the Hasselblads at some point, and concluded all of them were blurry, contrary to the fact that I repeatedly explained that you're wrong. But, you're not honest enough to deal with any of that. You will continue to simply reject, duck, dodge, and avoid. That's all you've ever done in any thread you post in. Your mind has been made up, based on incorrect facts. Garbage in, garbage out. You ate up the garbage spewed by dishonest videos, thinking it was all valid, without lifting a finger to find out it wasn't. And, rather than being upset with the people who made those dishonest videos in the first place, you are upset with the messengers who show you why those videos are wrong. This is classic paranoid delusional behavior, and, you will lie through your teeth to defend the delusion.
    2
  185. 2
  186. 2
  187. YOU SAID: "34:58 defying physics! leaning that far forward and they dont fall forward... How are they leaning forward in the air at that angle without falling over?" == The rover (the camera was mounted to the rover) is on a slope, therefore everything is sloped. YOU SAID: "that would be a good answer although if you look at the moments before its easy to see he was going downhill before." == Ridiculous nonsense. He was skipping along the sloped surface, which is part of the reason he lost his balance in the first place. If you don't like what you see in those few seconds, why aren't you watching the entire unedited sequence instead? Why would you think you can judge this stuff from just a few seconds of video? From those 2 or 3 seconds you're referring to, you can't tell whether he's going uphill or downhill. He's just hopping, and about to fall, and then falls. Go watch the entirety of the hours upon hours of Apollo 17 videos, and then make your judgment. Don't watch 2 or 3 seconds of an astronaut falling down, then tell me that you think you know things you don't know. YOU SAID: "he is facing downhill so that makes him leaning forward" == Seriously? Does that even make sense to you? You think if you're going downhill, you face forward? No wonder you believe silly things. Go try it. Walk uphill, and see if you think you're leaning backward (relative to the slope of the ground). Walk downhill, and see if you think you're leaning forward (relative to the slope of the ground). Good grief. You are completely and totally BACKWARD in your understanding. YOU SAID: "like that even more likely he would fall over." == He DID fall over!!!!!!!!!!! What's wrong with you!?!?!?!?!? YOU SAID: "He literally hangs for a sec before his bottom legs come forward to life him up.. at the very end of the clip he stands up straighter than the hard lean. so if he was on a slope that lean wouldnt change because the camera is still.. but I do like your answer and is still a most likely plausible answer." == Just go watch the full original videos. Good gods. What a train wreck. You are entirely backward, and, yet, you think you understand these topics.
    2
  188. @KH4L0Dz YOU SAID: "I swear i can't imagine how the people believe this this is the biggest conspiracy have ever the human being seen" == Yet, it's been 50 years, and countless illiterate people (just like you) make these wild claims. Yet, never in history has anybody ever offered any moon conspiracy notions that can pass scientific muster. Each and every moon conspiracy claim in history has been utterly destroyed the moment it comes under scientific scrutiny. YOU SAID: "nothing is logical in this videos I bet you, if this was true, they would have occupied the moon these days" == Then you don't understand thermodynamics. Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. It takes millions of pounds of rocket fuel/oxidizer to lift 3 or 4 people to the moon, including the craft itself, the fuel itself, a lander capable of returning to Earth, and the people inside. That hasn't changed. For example, SLS is nearly identical in size/capacity as the Saturn V was. And, the most they think they can squeeze out of Orion on top of SLS is maybe 4 people to go to the moon instead of just 3. So, you can sit there and "bet" on your ignorance until the cows come home. But, the equations to understand rocketry haven't changed in over 100 years since they were discovered/derived. The principles are the same today as they ever were. And, if you want to lift that kind of payload to the moon, it will require millions of pounds of propellant. The average person will never even be able to buy the fuel to go to the moon, let alone the craft, and everything else it takes to go there. YOU SAID: "and we were watching this on the moon through telescopes" == Oh, but I thought you said that "nothing is logical in this videos" (your wording)?? Yet, simultaneously, you think that telescope optics on Earth can see something like that on the moon??? Atmospheric scatter? That means nothing to you? Optical resolution? That means nothing to you either? Good grief. I mean, the mere fact that you'd make this suggestion only shows how ignorant you are. Google "optical resolution," Select the wiki page. Read the formula to calculate the size of lens you'd need to see something like this from the distance between the Earth and moon. Do the calculations yourself. In order to see something that size from this distance, with enough resolution to even know what it is, would take a lens A QUARTER MILE in diameter!!!! Given that the biggest optical grade lens ever constructed was about 5 feet across, and costed $168 million, yeah, I think we're a long way off from QUARTER MILE telescope lenses!!! Shhheeeeessssshhhh. Oh, but "nothing is logical" in the videos? Um, no, dummy. Nothing is logical about anything YOU say. YOU SAID: "yoo dude ehat kind of facts you are talking about ?? The flag which is waving from the wind or the same recording place for every moon mission from apollo 11 to 17?" == The flags have waved only under very specific conditions: 1) When being handled, or immediately after being handled. Did you expect them to stay stiff for some reason, if they're being handled? 2) When an astronaut passed near a flag, and the PLSS (life support) backpacks are off-gassing at the time. Yes, there were one or two times during the missions that this happened, and you can see some slight flag movement. Yes, the "wind" (extremely tiny amount) ever so slightly causes some small motion in the flags. 3) When the purge valve on the lander is opened, and the oxygen rushes over the lunar surface. Those are the only times the flags have ever moved. None of those things require a conspiracy explanation. YOU SAID: "Or that weird illogical for the physics movements when they stumble?" == It's simple. The rover is on a slope, and the astronauts are on a slope. The ground looks "level" in the TV picture because the camera is mounted perpendicular with the surface. Yazzam posted a link to a video that shows this same sort of concept. Tilted ground, tilted camera. It's really that simple. YOU SAID: "We all know how the gravity that should be on the moon but not like this !!" == Then calculate it. What are you waiting for? Why are you on YouTube, if you think the gravity is "wrong" in these videos? You can demonstrate it via the scientific method. Calculate it. Write it up. Submit it for scientific peer review. I really don't know why you people don't do that. Instead, you just come to YouTube comments and claim it's "wrong" with absolutely no math to back you up. YOU SAID: "He looks like he is tied with rope lol" == Because the ground is sloped, and the camera is sloped with it. There is no rope. YOU SAID: "dude just give me one evidence that they reached the moon surface except this kind of fake videos They did not solve the mystery of Bermuda triangle until they land on the moon lol!!" == Sure. I'll cut and paste one of the small pieces of evidence that I posted to someone else below. YOU SAID: "dude i just wannt you to tell me why the earth is look so small despite to the earth that bigger than the moon with 20x it should be bigger in the picture here 35:27" == 20x, eh? Funny, I've done the math. One of my degrees is in mathematics, as a matter of fact, not that I've ever bothered to call myself a mathematician. But, you don't need to have a degree in math to be able to do the simple trigonometry to calculate it. But, yeah, the moon is about 0.5 degrees in angular size from Earth. The Earth is about 2 degrees in angular size from the moon. That's 4x the size, not 20x. And, yes, it looks pretty correct in the videos to me. But, again, this is one of the many reasons you shouldn't even bother being on YouTube, and you should be submitting your calculations via the scientific method. I always thought that 2 divided by 0.5 was 4. But, you apparently think 2 divided by 0.5 is 20. But, yeah, it's been decades since I got my degree in mathematics, and I pretty much abandoned math shortly thereafter, despite my chart-shattering aptitude for it. So, yeah, why don't you go ahead and show me how you get to the conclusion that 2 / 0.5 = 20? I'm sure there's a Nobel Prize with your name on it if you can demonstrate it.
    2
  189. 2
  190.  @xpez9694  YOU SAID: "I see you writing a lengthy comments to everyone else as well." == TRANSLATION: "I have the attention span of a dead chipmunk. So, if you can't explain rocketry, and if you can't explain a 10 year long program to reach the moon, in 3 sentences or less, I'm not going to read it, and it's fake." YOU SAID: "God only knows what kind of misquoting you are doing to make yourself seem superior to everyone." == Dummy, I have only quoted MYSELF!!!! I cut-n-pasted MY OWN words. Someone else recently asked the same sort of questions you asked, so, I went there, grabbed a few lines that ***I WROTE***, and pasted them here. How can I possibly "misquote" MYSELF?!?! Good grief. YOU SAID: "rockethead7 doesnt know what he is talking about." == Wait, what? You think the Earth should look 20x larger from the moon, remember? That's YOU who made that claim. Do you do the math to back that up? No, of course not. Have any one of the world's experts, staffed in any of the planet's 72 space agencies, ever noticed such a massive "mistake" that the Earth is the wrong size by a factor of 20x?? No, of course not. You're also the one who thinks you'd lean FORWARD when going down a hill, remember? Don't sit there and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. And, you know what?? It doesn't matter anyway. Every single thing I've said is correct, whether it comes from me, or comes from someone else. You can verify this stuff the exact way I outlined, and therefore it doesn't even matter if I know what I'm talking about or not. You can verify these things FOR YOURSELF (if you'd lift a finger to do the math).
    2
  191. @KH4L0Dz YOU SAID: "naaahh he didn't" == Dummy, the stuff I wrote stands upon its own. You can't push it aside just because you don't like the person who posted it to you. All of those countries tracked Apollo missions to/from the moon with their radio telescopes and/or radar. You asked for one small piece of evidence for Apollo that doesn't depend on videos. I provided exactly what you asked for, and I could give you tons more iron clad evidence on top of that, which also doesn't require you to watch videos. You don't get to dismiss it merely because you were unaware it existed. All you've done is ask for evidence that doesn't depend on videos (while laughingly expecting the answer to be "there is none"), then, when provided the exact evidence you asked for, you shove it aside. I'll never understand why you dummies ask for evidence, when every single one of you conspiratards intends to ignore the evidence when you get it. YOU SAID: "He's just a copy-and-paste taker dude" == I copied and pasted FROM MYSELF!!!! Did you not read? I clearly said, "I'll cut and paste one of the small pieces of evidence that I posted to someone else." Get it? I had posted that same stuff recently to someone else who asked for it (then ignored it, just as you are doing), so, I copied it to this thread. And, again, you are ignoring it. Guess what, dummy? It wouldn't even matter if I had copied and pasted it from someone else. I didn't do that. I copied and pasted FROM MYSELF. But, hypothetically, if I had copied it from someone else, it's still something you can verify for yourself. All of those countries, and more, proudly say THEMSELVES that they tracked Apollo missions. A lot of those facilities are still online to this very day (upgraded electronics, of course). And, if you go there, they will tell you all by themselves that they tracked Apollo with radar and radio telescopes. And, as I said, that's the tip of the iceberg. I can type for 30 hours, presenting evidence from sources completely outside of NASA, that confirms Apollo. You asked for evidence. I gave it to you. Now you're finding excuses to ignore it. YOU SAID: "if you search for the truth you will find it but you don't" == Dummy, conspiracy videos aren't "truth." If they were, they wouldn't be presenting it in conspiracy videos. The reason those conspiracy videos exist is BECAUSE they are wrong. If they were correct, they'd be presenting this stuff via the scientific method. They publish their stuff in conspiracy videos because they want to avoid the scientific scrutiny. Every single one of their claims collapses immediately under the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny. Every single one. Never once in the past 50 years since Apollo has anywhere EVER, from friendly or enemy countries, ever presented any of this anti-Apollo "evidence" (sigh) via any recognized science or engineering journal, and had it pass entry level scrutiny. Not once. Not one single time. So, instead, they skip the scientific method altogether, and publish straight to conspiracy videos, so that their gullible viewers can eat it up. They know their target audience will never fact-check them. YOU SAID: "You are treating the words of the scientists as definitive" == No, that's the OPPOSITE of the scientific method!!! Good grief!!! Have you ever even written a scientific paper? Sheeessshhhh. When you write a paper, and submit it to a journal, it doesn't matter who you are. The "words of scientists" do not matter. That's the entire point of the scientific method. It takes individual claims of scientists out of the equation, and makes testability and repeatability paramount. If you have something against Apollo, you write it up, and submit it. From there, it undergoes review, and if it passes muster, it gets published for the entire world to rebut, or accept. It doesn't matter if you're Albert Einstein, or the janitor at a nursing home, your paper undergoes the same scrutiny, and is prone to be rejected, or accepted, based on the merits of the claims themselves. YOU SAID: "even if that lies You believe in their words as Muslim for thier words" == I haven't got the foggiest clue what you're talking about, and neither do you. YOU SAID: "also i can't read all this newspaper you wrote with nothing convincing" == So, you didn't read what I wrote, but, I'm wrong about what I wrote? You didn't find anything convincing in words you didn't read??? And, you're PROUD of this level of stupidity?
    2
  192. 2
  193. 2
  194. 2
  195. 2
  196. 2
  197.  @arelortal6580  I just wanted to hunt down that image that you say is "impossible" at 18:40 (from the other video). And, I was wrong. The photo wasn't taken from in front of the LM, like my last posting said. It was taken from INSIDE the LM. It's the exact same basic concept that I've outlined in my prior posting. But, it's even more hilarious. You are insisting that the LM should be in the frame... but... the photo was taken from INSIDE the LM!!!!! This is pure comic gold at this point. It's image AS17-140-21355 from the Apollo catalog. The photo was taken from inside the LM, looking out the LMP window. Yet, you expected the LM to be in frame. This is just too funny. It really is. You have literally no concept of left/right/up/down/east/west/north/south. You can't figure out what should or shouldn't be in the frame of photos. You fail to understand simple concepts like... when mountains are miles away in the distance, yeah, they're really not going to look very different by merely moving a few hundred feet in the foreground... you don't seem to understand that the background is going to look the same, but the foreground will change when you move around... and you seem to be so single dimensional that you fail to understand that the astronauts actually traveled around in all directions, taking photos all the time. You seem to be under the impression that they only ever had the LM in front of them, and never went behind the thing, or something like that. You seem to always expect that the only photos they ever took were facing towards the LM. Good grief. You really are one of the dumbest people around.
    2
  198. 2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 2
  204. 2
  205. 2
  206. 2
  207. 2
  208. 2
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229.  @bisser6969  YOU SAID: "calling people names" == Pffttt. "Shill Seeker" is an absolute moron who believes that millions of people have been committing a massive fraud on the public, and that nothing has ever gone into space. He refuses to address simple mathematics. And, yes, I'm going to call him names. He is accusing millions of people of fraud. YOU SAID: "instead of considering therapist your self" == I'm not the paranoid delusional idiot who can't do math. YOU SAID: "is a bad idea. PRECISELY the technology missing at the time was the computer capable of landing the lunar module" == Oh, perfect then. So, the computer wasn't capable? Great. All you need to do is provide your calculations to say that the computer wasn't good enough. Provide your mathematical calculations outlining the exact amount of memory and processing power that was required in order to do it, and why. And, then explain why none of the PhDs and engineers at MIT and Raytheon ever noticed that the computers they designed and built to control the lunar landers were not good enough to do the jobs that they designed and built them to do. Why were they unaware that they didn't build the computers good enough? Write it all up into a scientific paper, and submit it for scientific peer review. THAT is how you prove your point. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail, I can feel it. YOU SAID: "and balancing the module going down" == Balance was achieved via a gimbal, you moron, not the computer. You don't even know which components did which task. YOU SAID: "with baby compressed air thrusters is even more si fi." == Dummy, the thrusters didn't work via compressed air. They were RCS rockets that burned N2O4 and Aerozine 50. YOU SAID: "4 jets are nowhere close enough, 8 would be maybe possible" == Well, it's a good thing they had 16 then, right? YOU SAID: "with 4 working all the time and 4 more working on deviations of the weight distribution of the module." == The GIMBAL did that, you moron, not the thrusters, and not the computer. You have confused descent with ascent. The ascent engine didn't have a gimbal, and used the RCS thrusters to do the tasks you're talking about. The decsent engine had a GIMBAL, you moron. You don't even know how these components worked. And, yeah, without a gimbal on descent, sure, it would be awfully difficult for the RCS thrusters to manage weight distribution and corrections. The entire LEM's descent + ascent stage were far far far far more massive than just the ascent stage. But, the ascent stage was about 34% of the mass of the ascent stage + descent stage together. So, yes, the thrusters were more than adequate to manage just the ascent stage. So, yes, on ascent, they didn't use a gimbal. You have confused ascent with descent, you ignorant jackass. Stop accusing thousands of people of fraud, based on your ignorance!!! People like you are pigs. You spit in the faces of the 450,000 people who made Apollo happen, based on your absolute ignorance about how this equipment worked. You accuse thousands of them of being criminal frauds who would get a lifetime in prison for their crimes. And, why?? Because you don't know how many thrusters the lander had? Because you don't realize that the descent engine had a gimbal? How would you like it if I paraded all over the internet and called you a child molester, based on a complete mis-identification of who you are, and my complete ignorance about any facts? That's EXACTLY what you're doing with Apollo. You know NOTHING about the topic. But, you're accusing thousands of the people involved of being criminals would would be imprisoned for life for bilking billions of dollars out of countless countries, to commit the greatest fraud against humanity in history. And, you do this because you don't know the descent stage had a gimbal, and you got it confused with the ascent stage. Nobody likes jackasses like you. Absolutely nobody. YOU SAID: "Do not be like dumb liberal( please notice that, i did not call you dumb), and just call names where logic fails to support facts." == Facts??? You don't even know which parts did which job. Good grief, what is it with you utter idiots that you think you understand aerospace engineering better than aerospace engineers?? Morons. You're all morons.
    1
  230. YOU SAID: "No stars in the back ground." == In the background? Like, there's a brightly lit lunar surface in the foreground, and no stars in the background? That's what you mean? Of course not. If there were stars in the background when there's a brightly lit lunar surface in the foreground, then that would mean the photo was fake. You can't properly expose stars onto the same photograph as you properly expose a bright surface. Photography 101. You can't do it on Earth, and you can't do it on the moon either. YOU SAID: "don't know who took the photo." == Well, you're not exactly explaining what you're talking about here. Are you talking about the famous "Blue Marble" photo? Schmitt took it. I'm not sure why the editors of the video don't know that. But, anyway, the same thing happens for photos of a brightly lit Earth. You can't get an exposure of a brightly lit Earth in the same frame as exposing stars. Photography 101. Just to dumb this down (oversimplified), when you're talking about exposing brightly lit objects onto film, vs. exposing stars onto film, you're basically talking about a 1/60th of a second exposure vs. a 4 second exposure. You can't have it both ways within the same photograph. Even modern digital cameras can't do it... without some pretty fancy software tricks. YOU SAID: "you spend all that money to go up to space but don't take a photo." == What are you talking about? You just said they took the photo. Yeah, the editors of the video didn't know who took it (for some strange reason). But, you just looked at the photo, now you're saying they didn't take the photo. YOU SAID: "surely that was the whole point!!! Of gong there.." == No, the main point of going there was to demonstrate to the Soviets that we will beat them in anything we put our minds to. It was a political statement during the cold war. It was a method of expressing technological, engineering, and industrial dominance. It was a method of trying to prevent the cold war from turning into an actual war. Yes, there were other purposes too, such as raw exploration. But, that wasn't the main purpose. YOU SAID: "a Hollywood film production from start to finish" == Wrong. YOU SAID: "You haven't given me any evidence.. its Google that you've given as evidence .." == No. He gave you instructions on how to find the answers about film exposure for yourself. YOU SAID: "childish fear mongering brainwashing mainstream Media programming.. not evidence!!.." == How is learning about how film exposure "fear mongering" or "brainwashing"? What ARE you talking about? This is ridiculous.
    1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. YOU SAID: "nasa astronauts are freely saying they have never - I repeat - never left Lower Earth Orbit" == No NASA astronaut has ever said that (EDIT: except maybe when talking about THEMSELVES in particular... no NASA astronaut has ever claimed that Apollo never left Earth orbit). You are intentionally taking things massively out of context. YOU SAID: "as they haven't got the technology to by pass the VA belts" == What EXACT "technology" do you think is required? What EXACT "technology" is lacking? YOU SAID: "and the radiation of outer space" == What radiation? What type(s)? What quantity? YOU SAID: "also earths orbits protect us every second of every day from outer space meteors" == How does Earth's orbit protect us from meteors? What are you talking about? YOU SAID: "and other space particle - on the moon they hit the moon constantly because there is no atmosphere" == Constantly? What? Do you have any idea about how rare those impacts are? Um, nutbag, if there was some sort of constant rain of particles hitting the moon, guess what, we wouldn't be able to clearly see the moon, because clouds of particles would block the vision. And, let's just talk about how spread out those particles really are. Take, for example, the rings of Saturn... we've sent craft right through them, without hitting a single particle. Just because you can see those big rings, doesn't mean they're dense. Yet, you think there's a constant barrage of particles on the moon, which we can't even see? Um, what??? YOU SAID: "if a small meteor the size of a grain of sand hit and astronaut on the moon its speed would take it straight through him -dead instantly" == Depends. If it hit something vital, sure. But, if it passed through something non-vital, they were trained on how to deal with it. The suits had a self-sealing layer for small punctures like that. YOU SAID: "time to grow up folks - they faked it" == You have no understanding of the topic. YOU SAID: "there are thousands of mistakes" == Yet, scientifically illiterate morons on the internet are the only ones who spot these "thousands of mistakes" - while the worldwide rocket science community of trained experts cannot find a single flaw. YOU SAID: "and some were left by whistle blowers to show they never went anywhere near the moon" == Pfftttt. You apparently believe anything you see that supports your delusion, and reject anything you see that goes against your delusion. YOU SAID: "by the way it will take Nasa many years to solve the problems of manned flights in space" == There are manned flights in space right now. What ARE you talking about? YOU SAID: "Nasa's words not mine" == No. You are butchering the living daylights out of these words, which you clearly do not understand in the slightest.
    1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. "If my duct tape gets over 30 degrees it is not really sticky anymore. So they should have had "professional moon and-space quality duct tape "on board." Huh? You're talking about the duct tape on the fender, right? You do know the duct tape didn't work for very long, right? They put it on, it worked for a bit, but, then they had to use clamps to repair the fender, because the duct tape failed. You do know this, right? It sounds like you're complaining that something is fake, because you don't even know that your own criteria (that the duct tape would fail) actually happened exactly as you expected. Good gods. "Good that they thought about repairing something before launch!" Does this even make sense to you? You want them to fix something BEFORE it breaks? "Just make the rocket a little bit bigger." I don't even understand your objection here. But, the way they got a heavier weight to the moon for the later missions was to increase thrust and efficiency of the engines. They added 25,000 pounds of thrust to each F1 for Apollo 15/16/17. And, they increased the efficiency of the lander's engine by lengthening the engine bell (less spread of the exhaust, more focused thrust). "What do you know about my knowledge of physics?" That you have none. "You get a lot of warming of materials because of that." Yes, hence why they used silver to reflect most of the sunlight on crucial items, suits that reflected most sunlight instead of absorbed it, and a thermal blanket on the craft that combined inconel panels (which are good insulators while not expanding as much as other metals), black tape (to radiate heat), and Mylar/Kapton foil (to create vacuum gaps and reflect light/energy). "That can give temperatures above chemical stability, material stresses etc." So, the 7,000 aerospace engineers at Grumman all "did it wrong," and you're here on a YouTube comment to "correct" them in their massive failure to understand aerospace engineering? "The extreme heatloss in the shadows, radiating to 3 degrees Kelvin of background of space, that cools quickly. Quick temperature changes of all type of materials is the result." They were more worried about radiating the heat on the side facing the sun than the side facing the shadow. I fail to understand why you think you've made some sort of relevant point here. "The moon Hasselblad camera's must have been magic" So, now the engineers at Hasselblad all "did it wrong" also when they lined the cameras with silver to reflect the heat/energy/light, and, you've come to YouTube to tell all of those camera engineers that they don't know how to engineer cameras. Bravo! "Film inside them must have been magic because it breaks when too cold." And, you think they got too cold, why? Again, you are merely demonstrating that you have zero understanding of thermodynamics. "They never seemed to have mis clicked" Huh? Have you looked at the photo archives? What? There are THOUSANDS of bad photos including tons and tons of misclicks when they took a photo while the camera was pointed at who-knows-what. "and seemed to be able to change the roll of photo;s (24 per roll?)" So, you're here to say that the Hasselblad camera engineers and Kodak film engineers didn't know what they were doing, yet, you don't know that each roll of film had HUNDREDS of photos (per roll)? Really? 24 per roll? Where do you get this garbage? Why would you think you understand a topic better than the engineers who built the things, when you know so little about it? "Needed correction is mostly in the microsecond or faster realm" Pfftt. What EXACT maneuver required microsecond reactions? And, now you're back to saying the 7,000 engineers at Grumman built the lander wrong? "Even breathing and moving your hand in the capsule can change the center of mass and so the position to the drive rocket and can give an angular deviation." The descent rocket had a gimbal, dewdrop. Do you not understand what that means? Gimbals deal with that exact issue. The first burn in the lunar lander was for ullage (only used RCS, which was used to orient the fuel/oxidizer/helium in the tanks). The second burn was at 11% throttle (though, they say 10%, whatever, it was actually 11%) to align the gimbals. After that, the gyros took care of the gimbals for the rest of the descent. Why do you not know this? You know more about aerospace engineering than the aerospace engineers who built the craft!!!! Right?!?!!?! So, why are you unware of the gimbals? "In the end you could end miles away from your appointment , with the capsule that stayed in a trajectory around the moon, or overshoot it." The command module SPS engine was gimbaled also. Good gods. Do you know ANYTHING about rocketry? "I am curious about the moon car video, I have never seen a video about the unloading of the thing. I believe you on your word that there are texts, photos and videos how they did that." And, I told you exactly how to find it. What's your problem? Is your Google broken? "And all this was done by an amazing low use of rocket fuel." Calculate it. The Tsiolkovsky (also Goddard) rocket equation has been understood since 1903, and is still the cornerstone of rocketry today. What are you waiting for!?!?!?! The thousands of engineers who built the craft and rockets all forgot how to calculate it!!! Here's your chance!!! Publish your calculations in aerospace engineering journals!!! I have no idea why you're so proud to know absolutely nothing. But, that's your problem, not mine.
    1
  260. YOU SAID: "great docu, but why are the still images always super high resolution and crystal clear yet all footage looks like its 1.0p 😁" == It depends on the camera used. Most of the video footage from Apollo 17 came from a low resolution television camera, via a live radio broadcast back to Earth. It was an RCA field sequential scanning camera (making matters worse for picture quality, but, it made it very lightweight and easy to mount to the rover). And, they didn't exactly have the bandwidth (using that term loosely, since it wasn't a digital signal, it was actually an analog signal, but "bandwidth" is close enough to describe it for now) to send live high definition video back home. And, they really didn't have the cameras for higher definition either, at least not small/compact/light enough to stick on the front of a rover. == They had other cameras. They had two 70mm Hasselblad film cameras (still photographs), which produced images that have a higher "pixel" (equivalent) density than the most expensive digital camera you can buy today. They also had a 35mm stereoscopic film camera. They also had a 16mm film video camera. But, those only held a few minutes of film before they'd need to change the film roll, and they didn't use that camera as much as some of the others. == What you see in documentaries like this are selected imagery (still photos, or video) from the various cameras, and put together in a documentary format. Personally, I like the documentaries that give you the camera that was used, and the official NASA catalog number of the photo/video every time they show it on the screen. But, alas, most documentaries don't do that, and just put together these assemblies of videos/photos, sometimes even borrowing footage/photos from other missions, and never give you a frame of reference to understand it. I don't blame you for being confused, because the documentaries rarely specify enough information for you to fully realize what's happening. But, whatever, it's just a documentary. If you want all of the original TV footage, there's a YouTube channel called "Apollo Seventeen" (spelled out like that) that has nearly the entirety of Apollo 17's mission video on it. And, if you want to see copies of all of the original still photography and 16mm video film photography, you'll find it on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website. YOU SAID: "and why did light particle dust fall back down when they were driving and not linger/float if no gravity" == If there was no gravity, EVERYTHING would float away. The rovers. The dust. The mountains. The rocks. The people. Everything. The moon's gravity isn't zero. It's about 1/6th of Earth gravity. That's not a lot. But, it's enough to make things fall down. YOU SAID: "not doubting im just generally interested." == No problem. Nobody blames anybody for asking honest questions.
    1
  261. Apollo 9 and 10 were not in 1968, they happened in 1969. Apollo 13's explosion wasn't due to faulty wiring, that's a vast oversimplification. Some unsolicited advice: there are only 4 moonwalkers still alive. Go meet them. I've met most of the 12 across many different occasions over the years, had dinner with them, breakfast, lunch, sit-down conversations, you name it. I've watched them die off, one by one, and regret either not meeting some of them at all (like Alan Shepard), or not spending as much time with them as I could have (like Edgar Mitchell). Thankfully, I've met with ones like Cernan enough times to have a pretty good glimpse into their personalities, before they died... but, no matter what, it's never enough time... but at least I can say that I've talked with him for several hours. Dave Scott is the only commander still alive. He isn't the open book that Aldrin or Cernan are/were, but, again, the only commander still alive. He'll answer your questions, but, he doesn't go into the level of detail that some of the other did. Aldrin is the best to talk with. I've spoken with him a bunch of times (don't remember how many) over the years. He was definitely the most disliked of all of the astronauts (by the other astronauts). But, man, he'll give you all of the information you ever asked for, and a ton more. I had breakfast once with him and Jim Lovell, and I almost said nothing at all, and just listened to Aldrin talk, telling details that you don't find in any books. Lovell didn't even say much. Aldrin remembers the technical details as if it all happened yesterday. Charlie Duke is one of the friendliest of the astronauts. I've never seen him NOT smile. He's really fun to speak with. Schmitt is more difficult to meet than the others. I've met him a couple of times, but, didn't get as much time with him as I would have liked, and never one-on-one. But, he's definitely one fine speaker, and doesn't make too many mistakes about the information. Anyway, just my 2 cents. They're getting old. Don't miss out on a chance to meet them, if you have the means.
    1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. Good grief. Tim, why are you pretending? What point do you have in pretending to understand concepts you do not? 1) You cannot bounce signals off of the ionosphere and get a radio signal half way around the world, like you can with a moon bounce. The range is a couple hundred miles at best. And, it's not the same. 2) You claimed that you can bounce radio signals off of the magnetosphere also. Where's your Nobel Prize for rewriting everything known about radio? 3) When you send moon bounce radio signals, the round trip time is 2.5 seconds. When you bounce a radio signal off of the ionosphere, the round trip time is nearly instantaneous. So, sorry, but anybody can tell that they're bouncing the signals off of the moon by the round trip time. 4) If you think that the last 70 years of thousands of radio experts bouncing signals off of the moon are all wrong, and that those signals are bouncing off of the ionosphere, but, they just don't realize it, then, as I said, why aren't you demonstrating it by doing the very same thing, except doing it at a time when the moon is not in view of your dish? See, the people who actually do moon bounces know they're bouncing off of the moon because it only works when they aim their dishes (or Yagi) at the moon. If you say that they could just be bouncing those signals off of the ionosphere, then aiming at the moon shouldn't be necessary, right? So, why aren't you DEMONSTRATING IT!!?!??! Go do the exact same thing that the moon bouncers have been doing for 70 years, but, make it work when the moon is not in sight!!! Why won't you do this?
    1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290.  @shillseeker9538  Dummy, you just got done claiming that Trump wrote a blank check. I responded by outlining that the president has no such power to do that. Congress grants the money. That's how it works. Congress has to vote to even grant the money to begin with, and how much. And, then there's an appropriations committee that decides where every dime is spent. The White House has already gone back to congress and the appropriations committee and said that they have NOT been granted enough money to make it by 2024. The speeches are political posturing to apply pressure to congress to grant the money. Unfortunately, that's actually how this sort of thing works sometimes in life. They watched it work for Kennedy (for example). Kennedy's very famous "we choose to go to the moon" speech happened before a single dime was allocated by congress to fund Apollo. Not one dime. But, the speech rallied the public behind it, Apollo would become the tip of the sword for the cold war against the Soviets, and congress granted the funds. The speeches came before the money. It sometimes works. So, Pence/Trump/Bridenstine are attempting to do the exact same thing now. They're running around making speeches, for about 9 or 10 months now, claiming that they "choose to go to the moon" by 2024. But, it's not working. Nobody is really rallying behind it. There is no cold war going on to inspire that kind of funding at that kind of rate. There is no amazing public inspiration to put the 13th person on the moon. So, it's backfiring (so far). No matter how many times they run around making speeches about putting people on the moon by 2024, there's still not enough money to make it happen that fast. Congress is only granting the money that would put people on the moon by around 2028 or 2030, not by 2024. Yet, you go around talking about Trump writing a blank check?? Where?? Where is this blank check?? If he wrote a blank check, then why did the White House OMB (Office of Management and Budget) write to the appropriations committee, complaining that there wasn't enough money to make it by 2024?? If they already had a blank check, then what would be the purpose of such a letter? Why do you keep changing topics? You said Trump wrote a blank check. Where is that blank check? Produce evidence of that blank check. Don't give me speeches that prove ME correct. I already told you the purpose of the speeches. Give me actual evidence of this blank check you're talking about. You know, dummy, you are amazingly gullible. Off the charts gullible. History is riddled with empty promises and speeches made by presidents, vice presidents, politicians, etc. Trump made a million speeches about building a wall and making Mexico pay for it. The money was never granted. Obama promised to start a housing fund that would prevent most people from getting their houses foreclosed during financial hard times. The money was never granted. Clinton promised health care reform. The money to do so was never granted. And, now, Pence and Bridenstine are running around, talking about putting people on the moon by 2024, before the money has been granted to make it by then. But, you go around talking about a blank check written by Trump??? What's wrong with you?? Good gods, you're dumb.
    1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. First of all, what do you mean "not questions"? You clearly linked a video, and asked me a question about it!!! Now, you're pretending you didn't ask me a question?? I told you a million times I wasn't going to take on new questions until/unless you answered the million questions you were avoiding. You refuse to address your own topics, that YOU brought up, and all you do is shift topics constantly to duck and dodge any return questions. Why would I want to play your Gish Gallop game? But, fine, I'll answer your one additional question now, since you seem all bothered by it. And, the answer is that you need to understand where they were. That video was taken on a very steep slope. Go look at the entire mission. That clip is from the Lee-Lincoln scarp and the base of the South Massif mountain. The reason why it's difficult to understand it is because the rover (and its camera) is parked on that exact same steep slope. So, the ground looks "level" (so to speak) because the camera is also on the same slope, but, it's not actually level ground. It's a very steep angle. All of this is charted out in the mission logs, and you can map out each station stop along the rover traverses. That one was from EVA 2 on Apollo 17. But, conspiracy videos will never tell you that, and will never show you the topographical map of where they were. I mean, don't you think it's suspicious at all that they just talk over the audio? In that clip, you don't hear what the astronauts are saying. You only hear what the hoax nuts are saying. If you go watch the entire original clip, you will hear the astronauts talk about how steep the slope is, and how difficult it is to keep their footing. If you look at all of the Hasselblad photos from the Lee-Lincoln scarp area, and from the base of the South Massif, you'll see the slope they were on. But, I don't think you're capable of any of that simple stuff. So, let's make this easier: "Top 10 Places on Earth Where Gravity Appears Broken." That's exactly the same thing that's going on in the video clip you're complaining about. It's basically like an optical illusion, because the camera is angled with the hill that it's on, and this makes it look like gravity isn't working correctly. You should be angry at the makers of the conspiracy video for editing out the audio, and presenting a dishonest picture of what's going on. Go watch the original Apollo videos, not the edited clips from dishonest video makers. Listen to the astronauts talking about the steep slope. Go look at the photos from that same location. Look at the topography at that station stop. Stop just blindly accepting nonsense that the conspiracy videos feed you. Fact check them.
    1
  303. Dewdrop, why did you ask me to explain what's going on in the video clip, if you didn't actually want the explanation? It's been like a whopping 10 minutes since I posted my reply. And, already, you are rejecting it. You clearly didn't go watch the video showing how camera angles can trick you into thinking gravity is sideways or diagonal. You clearly didn't go hunt down all of the Apollo 17 videos from the 2nd EVA to see the terrain and listen to what the astronauts were saying about it. You clearly didn't go look at the archive photos from the Apollo 17 mission at the Lee-Lincoln scarp and the base of the South Massif mountain. You only had about 10 minutes. And, in that amazingly short amount of time, you didn't do a single thing I said, which would prove you wrong. Nope. Instead, you stuck with the dishonest presentation from a conspiracy video that won't explain this stuff. You have made it 100% clear that you don't want answers to your own questions. Your mind is SO closed to input, that you have discarded whatever was left of any of your thinking faculties (if you ever had any), and you have decided to ask questions (then deny you even asked them), and reject the answers before even getting them. Any honest person would want to explore the answers to their own questions. Not you, though. I told you to watch the videos in their entirety, not the edited clips from a conspiracy video that talk over what the astronauts are saying. I told you to look at the photo archives to see the slope they were on. I told you to look at the topographical maps of the lunar surface, so you can see the slopes that way also. And, I pointed you to a 10 minute video showing you other examples of how the camera angles can make it seem like people are leaning in impossible ways, defying gravity, just as seen in the Apollo video you're talking about. And, instead, you looked at NONE of that. NONE. Clearly, you do not want answers to your own questions. I probably shouldn't have even bothered answering your new question in the first place. You've refused to address a single challenge or question about anything you wrote prior. In one ear, out the other. Stick your head in the sand. Change topics. Duck and dodge. Change topics again. Duck and dodge again. It's ridiculous. I guess I should know better than to engage a high school dropout who has severe addiction problems.
    1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326.  @stevegagnon1539  Where did I get 40 degrees? Where'd you get 20 degrees? Where'd you get 30 degrees? First, you opened the thread by not even knowing the coordinates. You just blindly asserted the angle without even knowing it. That's how dishonest you are. Then, when told the coordinates were 30° 44' 58.3" east longitude by 20° 9' 50.5" north latitude, what did you do? You ignored the bigger number, and stuck with the smaller one, and just said it needed "correction" from the bigger number, but still asserting that, somehow, magically, the smaller number was the one that mattered (which is backward, illustrating your level of dishonesty... need to protect that delusion at all costs). Then, once corrected again, you increased the angle to the bigger of the two numbers (how generous of you), and ignored the smaller number, and actually thought that somehow it was more like an average between the two numbers or something like that (which is wrong), or that only the bigger number mattered (which is wrong). Now, you're coming here with your "lol" comments, as if you know things I don't know?? What? Not that it matters, the facts stand as they are with or without me telling you anything, but, yes, one of my degrees is in mathematics (highest honors, all kinds of awards, nobody cares, including me, that's long in my past, and even though I probably could call myself a mathematician because I have the degree for it, I have never called myself one). Anyway, I know how to calculate angles. You do not. And, you have already revealed quite well that you don't even understand basic geometry. Like, you're basically saying that if you go 30 degrees east... ok, that angle is 30... now, if you add on going 20 degrees north on top of the 30 degrees east, you somehow think that the net number is LESS??? I mean, you certainly don't add the two numbers together. But, any thinking person should know that if you go 30 east, and then 20 north, the net degree is MORE than 30. I need to dumb this down, apparently. So, forget the sphere, and start by just thinking of it like a simple rectangle. If the top/bottom sides of a rectangle are 30, and the left/right sides of a rectangle are 20, do you think magically that the diagonal is LESS than 30? No, of course not. The diagonal is A^2 + B^2 = C^2. C is bigger than either A or B. Well, a sphere is not the exact same formula as a rectangle, and requires some trig to calculate it, but, yes, when you have 30 east and 20 north, the net number is LARGER than either of those two. So, how did I calculate it? At first, in the earlier postings, I just spitballed, knowing that the angle had to be almost 40 because the two angles that fed it were 30 and 20. But, later, after a couple of messages, I wanted more accuracy, but, I was too lazy to do the actual trig, so, instead, I used a mathematical shortcut. I simply used a Haversine calculator to get the diagonal distance for the same dynamic on Earth, then divided for the circumference of the moon instead of Earth, and converted that back to degrees. That came out to about 36.5 degrees. Then, I, again, was too lazy to adjust for the fact that such an answer focuses on infinity from the "central" moon coordinates (0 degrees by 0 degrees), and that I'd need to add a bit more for the fact that the Earth isn't an infinite distance, it's only 238,000 miles, thus, we'd need a bit extra to accommodate. But, I didn't feel like making that exact calculation. So, I just figured the total is around 37-38 degrees, which was close enough to 40 to just say "almost 40." So, yes, subtracting from 90 (the only thing you did correctly), the moon to Earth angle in the sky was around 52 degrees (give or take a degree). But, now we have to deal with the 10 degree wobble (which I originally said was 8 degrees, and was wrong about). Well, you can only use half of that, because it wobbles in both directions from the "center" point. So, the maximum wobble from the 0/0 coordinate is 5 degrees. Thus, if the moon happened to wobble away from Apollo 17 during this mission, this easily puts the angle at around 43 degrees (or, in other words, 47 degrees from vertical once you subtract from 90). This is nowhere near the 70 degrees you opened by insisting. Anyway, you're a lost cause. Go publish. I cannot help you any further. You clearly have come to your conclusions without doing the math... or... frankly... before even *understanding* the math. You are deluded beyond hope.
    1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. Is this the one you're talking about? AS17-137-20910 If so, yes, the angles are deceptive there too. And, what you need to understand is that the entire ground there was really slanted. The entire wide surface in that area was fairly steeply sloped (for something that wide/big). That's the Lee Lincoln Scarp area of the moon. You think you're looking on a "flat" surface behind, but, it's not flat. It's like, if you're on Earth, and you're standing on a massive sloped hill, and you take a photo up the hill. The photo might look like a typical "flat" horizon line, but, no, it's actually uphill. Go research the Lee Lincoln Scarp slope. And, if that's not enough, look at a photo taken in the opposite direction. And, this "problem" is magnified by the cratering and meandering of the surface. Let me give you an example: AS17-137-20900 That's looking in the "downward" direction. Look at where the astronaut is in the photo, relative to the one taking the photo. Note: that's not the same exact boulder, but, it gives you an idea of the type of terrain they were dealing with, and really emphasizes the overall slope. Bottom line: the Earth is still at around 45 or 50 degrees (whatever we agreed upon), but, the photo itself is being taken "uphill" to begin with. Let me make this clear: they took that photo BECAUSE it was weird. They took the photo BECAUSE it looks amazing from those weird angles on the weird slope with the weird terrain. Go look up the Lee Lincoln Scarp, and then you'll see what I mean. These sorts of amazing geographic features are why they landed in Taurus Littrow in the first place.
    1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. A) How is that an answer to anything I asked? Have you looked for the telemetry? Which telemetry? Where have you looked so far? B) Like all hoax nuts, you are clueless. In 2006, NASA said they wanted to find two backup video tapes from the Apollo 11 moonwalk. Those two tapes had never been watched, not even once. They never even built a device capable of playing those two tapes. Those two tapes were from the pre-NTSC conversion. They made those two tapes in the event that the NTSC conversion didn't work. So, if the NTSC conversion failed, they would construct a machine capable of reading the tapes. But, the NTSC conversion worked, so, there was no need for those two tapes. Decades later, someone wanted to take a look at those two backup tapes, and intended on building a machine capable of reading them. But, he discovered they were missing. They searched for a year or two, to no avail. Their best guess is that the tapes were somehow mixed in with a bunch of similar tapes, and were recorded over. But, nobody really knows for sure. Over the years since then, you hoax nuts have decided that those two tapes are somehow important. None of you people wanted to watch those two backup tapes before, and, as I said, those two backup tapes had never even been viewed by ANYBODY. But, now, oh, they mean something to you? Why? What makes them important to you? How does this mean Apollo was fake? Over the years, the hoax nut videos keep increasing what was actually lost. First, they decided that the primary copies were missing, rather than the truth that they were backup copies. Then, magically, they concluded it was the data, and not just the video. This is because the hoax nuts don't realize that the word "telemetry" also applies to video, and, they blindly assumed that if "telemetry is missing," this means data. But, the hoax nuts are wrong. No data is missing. Why would you blindly trust a conspiracy video? What possible reason would you have to think any of that claptrap is actually true?
    1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361.  @lorichet  You continue to simply deny what a service engineer is (and what it isn't). Sorry, but the ACTUAL engineers didn't need technical support from a writer with no engineering credentials whatsoever, who doubled as a minor fixit guy with an inflated title of "service engineer." He witnessed testing of F1 engines? When? 8 years before they ever flew? Wow!! So, you're telling me that rockets need development and aren't always reliable on their first try? Say it ain't so!! Good grief. Sorry, but it's Kaysing's own statements that don't make sense. Quote from his book on page 84: "the Saturn C-5 moon rocket assembly was built to specifications with one major modification: instead of the totally unreliable F-1 engines, five booster engines of the more dependable B-1 type as used in the C-1 cluster for the Atlas missile were used." Yes, Kaysing proposed that there were littler engines secretly tucked inside the engine bells of the larger F1 engines... as if the actual rocket engineers were never able to solve the problems in the several years after Kaysing was long gone. This claim of his is about as outlandish as it gets, because there are camera angles underneath the rocket that show no such engines tucked in there. And, magically, none of the thousands of people working in the vehicle assembly process ever noticed that they removed the lander, and the innards of the other stages of the rocket, to reduce the weight so that the rocket could get off the ground with smaller engines. Sure. Right. You are amazingly able to simply dismiss the silly things Kaysing claimed, and you pretend he never even claimed them. Well, guess what, EVERYTHING he claimed is ridiculous. I mean, even pretending you were correct about his credentials (you're not, just hypothetically), why would you even grant an ounce of credibility to someone who was long gone for years and years before the first rocket even lifted off? Is it THAT difficult to stomach the notion that actual engineers fixed the reliability issues with the engines in those years? Sue for libel? Like he sued Lovell, and lost? You actually think that Kaysing could win a lawsuit against someone on YouTube who pointed out how ridiculous his notions were? And, what "libel" are you talking about? He quoted directly from Kaysing's own book (which you ignored). Yes, Kaysing claimed that there were little engines tucked into the bigger engines. Page 84 of his own book. So, where's the "libel" in quoting him directly? 7,000 engineers worked on the lunar lander, hundreds more on the rover. You are the one who claimed that it doesn't fit. And, your basis is because people said the dimensions were too large to tuck into the quadrant in the lander. I acknowledged that you were correct, and pointed you to a photo showing the rover sticking out of the side of the lander, because it didn't fit all the way in. I questioned why you thought this meant they couldn't take it to the moon. You said you couldn't even find any photos at all, yet, all you need to do is flip through the photo archive and see tons of them. Sorry, but it's very clear that if you don't see it in conspiracy videos, you simply don't know about it. The ONLY things you're aware of are the silly things that those videos present to you. You have never lifted a finger to actually fact check any of them, nor to study Apollo itself. You watch videos, you swallow everything they say, and you are so desperate for validation that you cling to the notion that a writer who was never an engineer, holding no credentials whatsoever, who left the program years before a single rocket lifted off the ground, somehow knows more about Apollo than the actual engineers. This is how far out to sea your ship has sailed, and you're not on it.
    1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367.  @lorichet  "I saw no photo from you." Pffttt. That's because you don't read the answers to your own questions. You are very married to this silly belief of yours, and reading answers to your questions would mean that you'd have to admit you're wrong. I provided you the photo catalog number in my very first reply to you in this thread. You read the first half of the message, but not the second half. "Even IF there's a photo (not a drawing) of a Rover fitting on the Lander" There are HUNDREDS of photos of the rovers being folded and unfolded, being put into the landers, and the rovers attached to the side of the landers (while sticking out, because they didn't quite fit, as I explained to you a million times, but good enough to get them to the moon). I provided you with a very nice one from a good angle so you could see the fenders sticking out from the side of the lander. There are many more photos like it, including ones from space where you can clearly see fenders sticking out. "that proves nothing" It proves many things. It proves you're wrong. It proves that you haven't actually looked for the photos you think don't exist. It proves you ignore answers to your own questions. It proves that the makers of the silly videos you're watching are able to calculate that the total volume of the folded rover wouldn't fit all the way into the equipment bay, but, like you, it proves that they never bothered to look at how GM, Boeing, and Grumman managed to make it work anyway, by allowing the rover to hang off the side, fenders exposed. "unless the Rover was assumbled on the moon" It WAS assembled on the moon!! Go watch the video from Apollo 15 where you see the rover being deployed. Good grief. See what I mean? David Keenan in this thread posted links to videos that would show you exactly what you're denying. But, you ignored them. You ignored all input from me. You ignored all input from him. You stuck your head in the sand, and pretended nobody ever provided you these things, as if nobody could scroll up and see all of the stuff you ignored. Good grief. The base of the rover and its wheels folded up, but, they still had to put together all of the other stuff that couldn't be folded up, like the radio dish, the equipment carted around, the rover camera, etc. You know absolutely nothing about the topic, nor do you want to know about it. You'd rather pretend you understand things you don't, watch a bunch of conspiracy videos, and then assume that the makers of those videos know what they're talking about. Hint: they don't. Most of those videos are made by people who know just as little about Apollo as you do. And, some of the other videos are made by charlatans who know darned well that moon landings happened, but have chosen to edit videos and present them in dishonest ways, just for a cash grab. You gobble up every word they feed you, and you've never fact checked a single thing they say.
    1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373.  @lorichet  Pffttt. So, now it's your position that the lunar lander in the photo isn't the same as the one they took to the moon? Hilarious!! Right. Sure. If you don't like that photo because it was taken before they were done assembling the lander, fine, instead, you can go look at some of the other hundreds of photos, including the ones taken in space on the way to the moon, or in lunar orbit. I chose that particular photo because it made it very clear how the rover didn't quite fit, but, they made it work anyway, with the fenders sticking out. Now, just because the photo was taken before they were finished assembling the lander, you're going to claim it wasn't the same lander? Hilarious!!! Remember, you were the one who refused to even look at the photo until just now, dozens of messages later. You are the one refusing all input. You don't know anything about the topic. You also denied that Kaysing claimed that the Saturn rocket had littler engines tucked inside the engine bells of the bigger F1 engines. His notion was that they couldn't get the F1 engines to be reliable enough, therefore they used the shells of F1 engines, but, secretly used smaller engines inside them. You said that was wrong, and denied that Kaysing ever said such a thing. I gave you the exact page number and quoted a line from his book. You ignored it, refusing to admit you're wrong. And, now, you finally got around to looking at one of the hundreds of photos you thought didn't exist, and you still refuse to accept it. You said you wanted to see a photo of the rover mounted to the lander, showing how they made it fit. I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for. And, now, you stick your head in the sand, yet again, and simply brush it away, while you declare victory. Seriously, I think it's time you put your Medicare policy to work for you, and make some visits to some of the professionals that can help you. Show them this thread. Show them the other threads. Maybe there are meds that can slow the progression of this obvious degeneration.
    1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380.  @lorichet  And, by the way, I've had quite enough of your excuses about not reading anything because of ad hominem attacks on you. You have avoided reading anything from square one. In my very first posted message in this thread, I gave you the catalog number of one of the photos that you asked for (but obviously didn't want). You pretended you wanted to see photos of the rover fitting into the lander, yet, when provided with one of the hundreds of them, you ignored it, and continued to insist that it didn't fit. 70+ comments later, I gave you the catalog number again. Your very next reply was "what catalog number?" after I had just given you the catalog number (again) in the very first word of the message. So, don't sit there and pretend you feel like you're attacked, and that's the reason you refuse to read anything. You're not reading ANYTHING that goes against your predetermined conclusions. Or, more accurately, you do read it, but, you ignore it and pretend you didn't read it, and then make up excuses about why you didn't read it. I even gave you a brief summary of the positions you hold, not a single "attacking" word in it, and you came back and said you didn't read past the first sentence. You have refused to answer 99% of the questions I've asked, yet, the moment I refuse to answer something you ask, you go bananas and wonder why I won't answer you. I'm not doing this any longer. I'm not going to sit here and entertain your silly fantasies about knowing more than the entire planet's aerospace engineers, while you refuse all input. And, after 80+ messages into this thread, when you finally looked at the photo that YOU pretended to ask for, what did you do? You denied it was the same lander that went to the moon. Well, you're only saying that because the lander was unfinished. It didn't even have legs on it yet, among many other parts that were not yet assembled. But, the photo served the exact purpose you were asking for. If you didn't like it because the lander wasn't finished yet, you can go look at hundreds more photos, including the ones taken in space on the way to the moon, or in orbit around the moon. But, that's not what you wanted to hear. You wanted to believe the rover couldn't be taken to the moon, and that the thousands of engineers who worked on the lander and rovers were all unaware that they forgot to make it fit. THAT is how ridiculous your position is, and it has nothing to do with any ad hominem anything.
    1
  381.  @russellmckernan  "why did they not continue with the many presentations of great success?" There are a million reasons. But, first and foremost, I'd ask how many would be enough for you? They sent 9 manned missions to the moon. They landed 6 of those times. How many more would it take to convince you? Are they never allowed to end the program? They must keep going endlessly, or you'll call it fake? They funded the Apollo program for 12 years for moonshots, and another 3 years for missions like Apollo-Soyuz and Skylab. The total cost to walk on the moon was about $16 billion for each of the 12 men who did so in hard costs, and approximately another $8-$12 billion in soft costs and international support, so, minimally, about $24 billion per person who walked around on the moon for a few hours each. Apollo's main objective was to beat the Soviets to putting a man on the moon. Apollo was 99% a political display of technological dominance, and 1% a program of exploration. Once that main objective was met, and the Soviets threw in the towel, congress had no interest in continuing to fund Apollo. If they were going to spend that kind of money on something, they wanted it to benefit millions of people, not 12. And, frankly, they got lucky. The Apollo program was very rushed, and killed enough people on the ground, and had enough near fatal incidents in space. They stretched it to the limits, and they got everything out of that program that they wanted. So, they ended it. And, after Apollo, NASA's budget was decreased from 4.5% of the entire federal budget (plus another 2 or 3% in soft costs) down to 0.48% of the federal budget. Want more reasons? Or, are you getting the point? I mean, I've seen a lot of your comments in these threads, and your arrogance is completely off the charts. You literally don't know the most entry level concepts about Apollo, yet, you're sitting there in your armchair declaring that everyone else (the sane ones) have some sort of disorder... while refusing to look into the mirror. Absolutely astounding.
    1
  382. 1
  383. YOU SAID: "you make all those statements with absolutely no concrete evidence" == Dummy, you didn't ask for evidence. He was responding to your statements. And, this is an amazing stroke of irony, because you offered no evidence whatsoever for the continuous slander/libel YOU are committing. You just spew unsubstantiated garbage, no evidence whatsoever. Then, if someone illustrates why your garbage makes no sense, you just reply with "you didn't tell me evidence"??? What? When did you ask for it? There are mountains upon mountains of evidence for Apollo. Sorry, but your favorite conspiracy videos aren't going to give you the evidence. And, neither will anybody else, when you have decided to ignore the evidence anyway. What EXACT type of evidence do you expect to see? What evidence is lacking? I mean, most conspiratards will never say what evidence they expect. Those who do, smugly state they want XYZ evidence (expecting that it doesn't exist), then run for the hills when you give them what they ask for. Others ask for evidence that can't even exist (like seeing Apollo landing sites with a telescope on Earth), demonstrating their amazing ignorance. Which category do you fall under? (A) Refuse to state what type of evidence you expect, (B) Will state the evidence you expect, and will be shocked to find out it already exists, or (C) You're going to ask for evidence that CAN'T exist? Is there a category (D)... you will ask for evidence that can exist, but doesn't?? You'll be the first.
    1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. "so you would expect the sun not to move that much in its trajectory over the landing place." Well, for example, Apollo 17, the first EVA had a sun angle of 15.3 degrees. By the end of the last EVA, the sun angle was 42.6 degrees. During each of the 3 EVAs, the sun angle changed by about 3.5 to 4 degrees (from the beginning of the EVA to the end of the EVA). "The sun also stays for 3 days more or less on the same spot in the sky" Absolutely wrong. A lunar day, from sunrise to sunrise, is about 708 hours. That's about 0.5 degrees per hour. So, in 72 hours, it moves about 36 degrees. That's a lot. To say that it stays in the same spot for 3 days is absolutely absurd. "shadows do not change that much in the 3 days" They change by about 36 degrees. That's about the Earth equivalent of landing at around 6:30am, and lifting off at about 9:00am. NOT the same spot. "I did see photos' and video with almost no shadow, so the sun must be straight above the landing place" The highest sun angle from any mission was about 45 degrees, and that was on Apollo 16. "But in other video we saw long shadows" So, it must have been taken during an early EVA. "Conclusion: the sun speed over the moon sky must have been higher than expected" Well, you're wrong. There isn't a single photo or video that depicts the angles you're talking about. "In one of the videos, I saw the shadow move in direction from parallel to the view towards a big angle, nearby the camera." I don't even understand this. You won't name the video or timestamp. And, "big angle" doesn't mean much.
    1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. Esthersar: "Whatever method that would show clear pictures to prove they were on the moon would be a good start." They took about 7,000 photos from the lunar surface, and about 110,000 photos from lunar orbit. And, as I've told you before (and you ignored), I don't consider ANY of them as proof that they went to the moon. Photos can be faked. Not that it's reasonable to fake 118,000 photos, but, whatever. I have given you a small sample of the best evidence for Apollo before, and you've always just rejected it without even reading it. In one ear, out the other, and you told me it wasn't worth reading. So, don't sit there and pretend you want evidence. You want to AVOID evidence. And, you have made your conclusions before you ever even asked one of your dishonest questions. All you've ever done is shift the goalposts. You say you want to see XYZ (thinking it doesn't exist), then, when I show it to you, you just change it and ask for something else. You did the same here (again). You said they never took photos of the stars. I gave you the photos of the stars, you then said they were too blurry for you (somehow claiming they never even took the photos, while also saying they took the photos but they were too blurry). And, I asked you to name how they should have done the 125 Carruthers photos. You refuse to answer. Instead, you just said they should have proved they were there? Sorry, but nobody cared to sit there and compose "proof" so that a barely literate hoax nut 50 years later could see something. They took the photos they were supposed to take. All you're ever going to do is stick your head in the sand and pretend they didn't.
    1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. Oh, and let's not forget how many messages it even took for you to admit ANYTHING about those photos. You kept maintaining that no such photos were even taken, ever, blurry or not. Then, when they were pointed out to you, you still said that they never took the photos, but that those photos were blurry. It took about a dozen more messages to get you to even admit that the photos were taken. Then, you insisted that I never gave you the catalog numbers. I repeatedly reminded you that I did give you those catalog numbers, and I even proved it by saying that you quoted from my very message that had the catalog numbers. And, now you're claiming that the catalog numbers I provided were still blurry (they weren't). Talk about shifting the goalposts. Talk about making it impossible to have a dialog. As I predicted many message ago, you were just going to deny the photos were real anyway, so, the fact that you demand people go look up photos for you is outlandish. No matter what was in those photos, you were going to call them fake anyway. So, this is why it's so ridiculous to listen to liars like you, asking for things that will make no difference whatsoever on what you believe. I even told you repeatedly, in this thread and others, that I don't even consider the photographic evidence to be all that relevant for proof of Apollo. I said it's ridiculous to think they faked 118,000 photos, but, whatever, photos are just photos, and the best proof is elsewhere. I've provided you some of that proof (in other threads), and your only reply was that you said that you were refusing to read it. Prove you looked at the Carruthers photos. One of the catalog numbers I gave you was 1f126. Tell me something about that photo that would make it clear that you had even looked at it, such as maybe identifying where on the photo the brightest stars were located, or other such defining characteristics that could prove you even looked at it.
    1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412.  @Cliffmchrist  Apollo's moon missions ended in 1972. The remaining Apollo programs (Skylab and Apollo Soyuz) ended in 1975. So, in the post Apollo era, if we adjust into 2021 dollars (the adjustment is made on the Wiki page for NASA's annual budget, for whatever that's worth), here are the numbers: Ford hands Carter a NASA budget of $17.9 billion for the 1977 year. Carter ends his term and hands Reagan a budget of $16.5 billion for 1981 (decreased by $1.4 billion under Carter). Reagan hands Bush Sr. an annual budget of $24.1 billion (increased by $7.6 billion under Reagan). Bush Sr. hands Clinton $26.8 billion for 1993 (increased by $2.7 billion under Bush). Clinton hands Bush Jr. $21.6 billion for 2001 (decreased by $5.2 billion under Clinton). Bush Jr. hands Obama $22.5 billion for 2009 (increased by $0.9 billion under Bush Jr.). Obama hands Trump $21.6 billion for 2017 (decreased by $0.9 billion under Obama). Trump hands Biden $23.3 billion for 2021 (increased by $1.7 billion under Trump). As for the rest of your position, about how this relates to the percentage of the federal budget, I don't really care. If the Fed increased their budget to a hypothetical $900 trillion, and gave NASA only 0.1% of it (a massive decrease in percentage of the federal budget), it's still $900 billion, which is still an astronomical increase when compared to the $23.3 billion. Percentage goes down dramatically, but actual spending money is about 40x more than ever. I'm not saying that's a realistic comparison, but, I'm illustrating the point about why the percentage of the entire budget is nowhere near as relevant as just the inflationary figures. And, given that you believe I reject Apollo, sorry, but I just don't have any faith in anything you say at this point. Not that you can really "offend" me, but, it just shows that you're not thinking straight overall. I've defended Apollo in these comments for years. And, you came here (other thread) and accused me of believing Apollo was a hoax. Your mind is lost.
    1
  413. 1
  414.  @xpez9694  YOU SAID: "he is facing downhill so that makes him leaning FORWARD LIKE THAT EVEN MORE LIKELY HE WOULD FALL OVER..." MAKES HIM LEANING FORWARD LIKE THAT EVEN MORE LIKELY HE WOULD FALL OVER. . read that again and again until you understand english......" == He DID fall over!!! And, I'm not the one with the English problem here, dummy. YOU SAID: "at @ 35:00 he is facing downhill or uphill?? == Fairly uphill. Not 100% directly, but, yeah, uphill. YOU SAID: "@ 34:53 he is facing 90 degrees up hill or downhill??" == He is kind of facing perpendicular to the uphill/downhill, but, he's also on his knees, on the ground. YOU SAID: "so which direction is uphill all directions?" == Dummy, I told you to go watch the entire sequence, not just these few seconds. Have you done that? Or, have you shoved your head up your own behind, and you're doubling down on your massive stupidity? YOU SAID: "Mr. CHIPMUNK all directions cant be uphill." == Dummy, he only turned about 90 degrees between 34:53 and 35:00. Good grief. YOU SAID: "you are ignoring clearly something weird in the video" == No, I know not to watch 7 seconds of video, and then think I understand everything from that. You, apparently, don't know that much. You watch 7 seconds of video, and think you can understand everything from that. All you need to do is watch all of the original footage. Yes, sometimes they parked on a slope, which messes up the camera angles. I've been through this rodeo many times with you conspiratards. NONE of you people watch the original footage. NONE of you people ever look at the lunar surface terrain maps, and cross compare with these videos. They were at that stop for like 20 minutes or something (don't recall exactly, and I'm not looking it up for your sake, but, something like that, yes). If you watch all of the original footage from that stop, it becomes much more clear. But, you obviously haven't done it, so, spare me your silly questions. You don't know what you're talking about. And, you were the one claiming that people lean forward (relative to the terrain) when they're walking downhill, remember?? You are BACKWARD!!! A person leans backward (relative to the terrain) when going downhill. You can't even get basic vectors right. YOU SAID: "and just claiming one direction is up hill but if he turns the other way and still gets up the same way then turns back originally how can the gravity be the same on a flat plane that is angled in one direction as a slope that looks flat..HUH???" == He only turned 90 degrees in those 7 seconds you're outlining, dumdum. Not 180 degrees. YOU SAID: "I dont care if you insult me" == Good. You shouldn't. You're insulting the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo for a decade of their lives, and calling thousands of them (a) criminal frauds who would get a lifetime in prison for the crimes you're accusing them of, and (b) too stupid to figure out which way a camera is pointing. YOU SAID: "but the heart of the argument I was making is still valid!" == Then WHAT ARE YOU DOING ON YOUTUBE!?!!!!?!?! Fame and fortune are at your fingertips!!!! PROVE YOUR CLAIM!!!! Submit your calculations via the scientific method!!! Demonstrate that you're correct!!! I mean, this is the most amazing part about you conspiratards... you think you have these "gotcha" moments that the entire world has never recognized, including enemy countries that would LOVE to disprove Apollo (if they could). Yet, the most you clods ever do is make conspiracy videos (no scrutiny whatsoever), or make YouTube comment postings. Not a single one of you will ever put your claims to the test of the scientific method. Or, rather, I should say, yeah, a handful of them have tried. But, those fail every single time. But, you paranoid delusional illiterate YouTube warriors never do. I can't even get you to watch the original footage, let alone can I get you to write a scientific paper to back up your assertions. YOU SAID: "watch video... yesterday I wrote this message for you after you made bullying remarks to me." == Bullying?? Good gods, what a snowflake. Dummy, I do not condone violence or bullying. But, if someone (like you) accuses thousands of people of being criminals, based upon ignorance, yes, I'm going to spell out my exact assessment of that person's intellectual capacity. Let's face reality here: you're not the brightest bulb. You know it. I know it. Stop pretending otherwise. And, if you want to come to a public comments forum, and display your ignorance to the world, that's your own problem, not mine. YOU SAID: "he is leaning upward on the hill." == When he's on two feet (right before falling), yes. When he's on all fours, on the ground, at the other timestamp you mentioned, he's 90 degrees off from that, basically a bit sideways on the slope. YOU SAID: "okay (must be an optical illusion like others have stated...)" == Yes. So, what's your beef? Why all the arguing, if you understand that the camera sometimes plays tricks on the human eye when it's on a slope, and when the video quality isn't exactly HD, and perspective matters? Why? If you now understand that things like this can appear like an optical illusion, why are you kicking and screaming? YOU SAID: "Then @@ he is leaning forward but towards 90 degrees to the left... So ​ @rockethead7 explain that." == Sounds like you just explained it yourself. Great job ignoring all of the rest of the stuff, by the way. It's what you conspiratards do best. You focus on little items you think you're correct about (you never are). And, when faced with stuff that shatters your delusions, you ignore it, and change topics.
    1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417.  @xpez9694  YOU SAID: "Anytime you call someone a name thats bullying." == Wow, you're one fragile snowflake, aren't you? No, dummy. Calling someone a name isn't bullying. If so, I'd have been banned from YouTube a decade ago, for the 8927349240793875903 reports to YouTube from dummies just like you, who report me to YouTube for bullying them. Thus far, I've never even had a single warning. YOU SAID: "You are overly pedantic and you think you can just copy and paste what someone says over and over" == Well, this basically proves you're not even reading what I'm writing. I told you, I didn't copy and paste from anybody besides myself. YOU SAID: "Yes 90 degree turn leaned over is enough to make a huge difference in whether or not you are leaning into a hillside. Its actually impossible. go try it in a driveway or on a steep street. lean as you would to stay upright in the first position. Now turn 90 degrees with your body leaned at the same angle..you will not be able stand up without bending your knees one side to compensate. You can do this as a thought experiment. You do know what a thought experiment is genius right?? Think your brain can manage that little exercise. And you mentioned the possibility of an optical illusion. Which is fine. i can see that.. but what throws that off is the fact that he turns position and is still leaned over the same way... Now that throws all of that into question." == No, dummy. You are taking a whopping 7 seconds of video, in which the astronaut is FALLING DOWN (thus, it's already very skewed), and then you're comparing what would happen in EARTH gravity. Good grief. The man was on his hands and knees, in 1/6th gravity, on a slope. And, again, I'm not explaining this again. Go watch the original videos, you utterly pathetic dolt!!! What's wrong with you? How many times must you be told the same thing? You're not going to get a very comprehensive idea about what's happening from 7 seconds of video when the astronaut is in the act of falling down. Good grief. Furthermore, the center of mass is off on astronauts to begin with, due to the PLSS. And, again, what are you doing on YouTube? I don't matter at all, dummy. You can scream at the wind until the cows come home in YouTube comments, nobody cares. If you have something to prove, WRITE IT UP!!!! SUBMIT IT TO JOURNALS!!!! What's wrong with you? Why can you not understand this? YOU SAID: "Telling me I am ignoring the other stuff...what other stuff." == Is your "scroll up" broken? YOU SAID: "But you just feel like throwing insults and copying and pasting is somehow going to make your point stronger." == Dummy, I'm insulting you BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IGNORAMUS. You deserve it. And, I copied and pasted because just a day or two ago, I had answered the identical question. It doesn't change the content. You're still ignoring it. Would it matter if I had written the same thing twice, vs. copying and pasting it? Would that somehow change the content? What's wrong with you? YOU SAID: "You are the most obnoxious person I have read giving comments." == Good gods. I don't care, dummy. YOU are the one accusing 450,000 people of being involved with worldwide fraud, based upon the inability to recognize when an astronaut is on a slope. Don't tell ME that I am obnoxious. Look in the mirror. YOU SAID: "If you go back and read I was never outright insulting to you" == I really don't care whether you insult me or not. I am of absolutely no consequence. You are insulting 450,000 people. Dummy, you are still avoiding the content of the rest of the messages in this thread. People like you are amazingly pathetic. It doesn't matter if it comes from me, or comes from someone else. The content is the same either way. And, you're still avoiding it. Look, you utter imbecile, this is what you need to do: forget YouTube comments. Just demonstrate your claims via the scientific method. That's really what this boils down to. But, I'll warn you, when you submit your analysis of 7 seconds of video for review, the very first objection will be that YOU NEVER WATCHED THE ENTIRE ORIGINAL VIDEO!!! Good gods. You sure are proud to be stupid.
    1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430.  @arelortal6580  Attempting to post the other part of the missing message from earlier: YOU SAID: "Apollo 17- On The Shoulders Of Giants (1973 ) The camera that followed the LM ascending at 23:09 was set by the astronauts after they landed and when they left the surface of the moon, the descending stage was left on the moon. Consequently, if the camera was pointing at the landing spot we would see 21:36 or 23:42 . So far so good." == Yes, there's a lot of stuff seen in the Hasselblad photo. There's the same stuff seen in the low-res TV signal (you can't make it out at that low resolution, but, yeah, it's the same basic stuff, we agree). YOU SAID: "The trouble starts when we compare both background with 18:40. The mountains are EXACTLY the same in all the scenes. The absences of LM or descent stage at 18:40 are impossible unless it's been staged and you know it makes sense. Don't cha ?" == Good grief. You people are so stupid about basic photography, and geometry. You don't even know where the astronauts were standing when they took each photo. You can't just look at the background and assume the LM is in front of them. Sometimes, surprise surprise, they took photos when the LM was to their back. Shocker, I know, but it's true. And, you're committing the same exact error AGAIN, by not being aware of where the photo was taken. At 18:40 (in that other video), the LM is BEHIND THEM!!!! The camera is facing AWAY from the LM. Good gods. Once again, you are literally 180 degrees wrong. This is almost like you're doing it intentionally. It's like you don't understand basic photography (or geometry). Sheeeeeesssshhhh, you're dumb. You are standing in a fairly featureless environment, like, whatever, a desert. Five miles away in the distance, there's a mountain. 100 feet in front of you, there's a cactus. You take the photo of the cactus with the mountain in the background. Now, walk toward the cactus, and walk past it by 20 feet, still facing the same mountain. Take another photo. Now, it's just a photo of the exact same mountain, but, wow, there's no cactus in the photo!!! The cactus must have been magically planted there, eh??? Or, is it just because the cactus is now behind you?? Good grief. This is exactly the problem you're experiencing with your ridiculous story here. You fail to realize that the LM is BEHIND THE CAMERA at 18:40 (from that other video). And, in the liftoff portion of the video, the LM is in front of the camera. Yes, same background mountains. But, one is taken in front of the LM facing those mountains, and the other is taken behind the LM facing those mountains. One has the LM in frame, one doesn't. Same background. Just like the cactus. Take a photo with the cactus in front of you, and it's in frame. Now, walk toward the mountains, past the cactus, and take the photo again, and there won't be the cactus in frame, but will have the same background. All of this is quite easily shown by looking at the maps of where all of that stuff is located, you know. You simply don't know where any of these things are. That's why you got confused about where Camelot was (your original posting), which direction the camera was facing, etc. And, that's why you're confused about the rest of this stuff.
    1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1