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

  1. And, there are only 4 left alive who have walked on the moon, only 1 of which was a commander who flew the lunar module and drove the rover. Nobody lives forever, and, if they don't keep Artemis on pace to put more people on the moon, we could be in a position where we'd have to say that there's nobody alive who walked on the moon.
    16
  2. Which of those three categories do the virtual entirety of the world's experts in aerospace engineering fall under, employed either directly or indirectly by the world's 72 space agencies? And, why has there never in history been a single demonstration of your beliefs that has passed through the scientific rigors of the peer reviewed process? Not one. Not in any recognized peer review journal anywhere on Earth. Not a single time. Not ever. Why would that be?
    10
  3. So, let me get this straight. Your first comment said that people cannot survive the Van Allen belt (you wrote singular, because you're unaware that there are two, sometimes even three). Now, I gave you James Van Allen's exact words (which you thought were mine, despite that I quoted him directly and even said so). And, you've taken a new position now that it's the radiation beyond the belts that's the real problem, which contradicts your first comment. Is that about right?
    7
  4. Huh? What about James Van Allen himself? "The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important constraints on the safety of human space flight. The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in order to avoid significant radiation exposure. A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week. However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These estimates are still reliable. -- James A. Van Allen"
    6
  5. Huh? They took 110,000 photos of the moon during Apollo, half of which are on the other side. The Soviets actually took the first photos of the other side. Japan mapped out the entire moon, including the other side, in 2008. LRO has been up there for 13 years mapping the moon with a resolution down to 1.5 feet per pixel, including the other side. How much more do you want?
    6
  6. There should be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING preventing you from buying a supersonic airliner ticket to London tomorrow... unless CONCORDE NEVER EXISTED...
    6
  7. As usual, you come to these videos to display your stupidity.
    6
  8. It's called "dynamic range." Human eyes have a similar problem seeing stars in daytime that cameras have, just for a slightly different reason. The astronauts DID talk about seeing stars while in orbit on the dark side of the moon. But, it was simply too bright while on the lunar surface. And, sorry, but context is important. You don't get to just take out of context quotes about seeing stars on other types of missions/craft, without actually knowing a lot more details than the one-sentence clips fed to you from conspiracy videos.
    5
  9. YOU SAID: "I want the same phone they used to talk to them" == Well, then you need to attach this dish to your phone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkes_Observatory#/media/File:Parkes_Radio_Telescope_09.jpg That's one of the ones used to communicate with Apollo. YOU SAID: "to em when they landed on moon, coz my mate comes round and his cellphone don't work in my kitchen because of the kingspan insulation with thin aluminium foil which blocks the signal, what was the space craft made from?" == Dummy, your cell phone's antenna is on the INSIDE of the phone. Apollo's antennae were on the OUTSIDE of the craft. Really? You really believe that the entirety of communications experts forgot to put the antennae on the outside of the craft? Good gods. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg See those 4 S-band dishes? See that little arced scimitar omni? (There are also more from other angles you can't see.) Those are the communications antennae. There were similar antennae on the lander. Are you PROUD to know nothing? What's wrong with you? Why would you think it's a good idea to proclaim to the world, "Hey everybody, look at me!!! I don't know anything, and I'm very proud of it!!!" ??
    5
  10. Huh? In 2019, they were granted the money to go back, hence we have the Artemis program. They've already sent one unmanned mission back to the moon as a test of the SLS rocket and the Orion spacecraft. Starship (which will eventually be used as a moon lander) is being tested right now. They're approaching a test launch in the coming months. Why in the world would you say they're not going back, when things are proceeding forward?
    5
  11. And, you'd believe such a silly thing, why?
    5
  12. Oh, who was "catching on"? Were the Soviets "catching on" when they tracked the Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes? What about the other dozens of countries that did that also? When Japan sent Selene to the moon, and found signs of the Apollo missions on the moon, were they "catching on"? How about Arizona State University's LRO camera, which has been sending back images of the Apollo landing sites for over a decade? Why haven't those people "caught on"? How about China, which saw the Apollo landing sites with their orbital cameras also? No? They didn't "catch on"? Just a few months ago, India released their photos of the Apollo landing sites that they captured with their lunar orbiter, which showed the exact same thing that all of the others show... landers, rover tracks, foot paths, etc. Why haven't they "caught on" to whatever you think you've caught on to?
    5
  13. Don't be ridiculous. Every single one of the world's 72 space agencies believes Apollo happened. Many countries confirmed Apollo in many different ways, including enemy countries. Here we are, 50 years later, and STILL there has not been a single anti-Apollo scientific paper anywhere on the planet in any science journal that has made it through entry-level scrutiny. That's why people like you are relegated to YouTube comment fields (no scrutiny), because not a single one of your anti-Apollo claims holds water.
    5
  14. 1) Ed Fendell. 2) Yeah, the 7,000 people at Grumman who designed the lunar lander, the hundreds more at Boeing and GM who designed the rover, all simultaneously forgot to make it fit, and for 50 years, they never realized that they overlooked such an obvious thing. 3) Huh? Weightless? Are you under the impression that there's no gravity? 4) It was being handled. Air, or no air, is not relevant. 5 and 6 and 7 and 8) Again with gravity, huh? How would the moon even stay together if there was no gravity? 9) Ed Fendell.
    5
  15.  @ICANanimations  YOU SAID: "Starship will be active within 10 years." == Well, maybe. Who knows? Certainly in one form or another. But, it had better be faster than 10 years in the lunar lander form of Starship, because the rest of the Artemis program will be ready before then, and I'd hate to see them just waiting for a lander. Of course, that can happen (waiting for one craft). YOU SAID: "if not them it will be Blue Origin doing it." == Bezos lost the lawsuit. But, yes, in the back of my mind, I hope it still swings over to Blue. I never liked Starship. YOU SAID: "SLS just rolled out" == Yes, there is a certain irony when the conspiratards keep saying we can't do it today, when a moon rocket is sitting on the launchpad this very minute. YOU SAID: "bringing humans back to the moon in 2024." == Lunar orbit maybe. Almost certainly no landing by then. Even NASA isn't spewing that date for landings any longer (a date which congress never approved the funding for anyway). Congress funded it at a rate that would make the landings in 2028-2030, according to the White House OMB. But, yeah, that sort of thing changes a lot. So, we'll see. Might be faster, might be slower, might get canceled altogether. Time will tell. YOU SAID: "there is still hope for you" == Love your optimism.
    5
  16. Name one scientifically peer reviewed journal article that supports what you just said. Name one.
    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. Actually, their suits were quite damaged. It's tough to know for sure, but, the people who have examined those suits say that they probably couldn't get more than 2 or 3 more EVAs out of them before the wear and tear (dust damage mainly) would start to compromise the outer layers. It wouldn't have been fatal by any means. There are many layers. But, yeah, the fabric in the outer layers was quite torn up.
    5
  19. You have been presented with evidence for two years now, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what the government says, yet, you keep on posting the same nonsense over and over. It's time, man. Go make that appointment for an evaluation. You know you've been waiting too long. It's time to get diagnosed and treated.
    5
  20. Huh? Why would an atmosphere be required in order to have color?
    4
  21. Huh? There is no wind on the moon. Are you talking about the flag moving when being handled? If so, what did you expect it to do?
    4
  22.  @ChrisPBacon777  He's claiming that the volcanoes in Hawaii look exactly like the mountains seen in the videos taken on the moon. It's ridiculous. Here is a man who believes everything he is told by conspiracy videos, no matter how outlandish.
    4
  23. And, you think you can tell the difference between 0.5 degrees (angular size) vs. 2 degrees (angular size), just by looking at some photos? Yes, if you know the focal lengths, the lenses used, the distance to relative objects in frame, etc., you should be able to mathematically calculate it. But, at a glance, why do you think you'd be able to tell? Either one is still really small in the sky.
    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. Nick already answered you, but, I'll add the same basic sentiment a bit differently. You can look up the schematics and demonstrate your claim that the stuff wouldn't fit. But, none of you conspiratards do that. You just say "too big" or "too small" or "not enough" or "too much" to things like the size of the lander, radiation, fuel, etc. None of you people ever calculate it. None of you people look at the schematics and do the math. No. Instead, you go on YouTube and pretend you know what you're talking about. Dummy, how do you think this conspiracy goes, anyway? The thousands of Grumman engineers and technicians who designed and built the lander never said, "oh, wait a minute, we forgot to make the rover fit!!!" No? They're all too stupid to realize they forgot to make the rover fit? But, YOU say it can't? How about the engineers at Boeing and GM? They never realized they forgot to make the rover be able to fold up and fit in the lander either? No? Decades go by, and not a single one of them has ever said, "wait a minute, we forgot to make the rover be able to fold up!!!!" No?
    4
  26. Well, I suppose a lot of people think it's weird, sure. But: (A) What's the point in going higher than 300 miles, unless you actually have a destination in mind (such as the moon or Mars or soemthing)? And, (B) What rocket would you propose they use to go much higher? Once the Saturn V was retired, do you have a particular rocket in mind that would be capable of carrying people higher, plus all of the craft and life support needed for such a mission? As a side note: thanks for proving for the billionth time that moon hoax nuts cannot read and write. I know it has no impact directly on the arguments you'd make. But, good grief, if just ONE of you nuts was capable of writing a sentence, it would be quite refreshing. "Wierd"?? Good gods. Go back to school.
    4
  27.  @mikep9604  I'm pretty sure he meant manned missions. But, yeah, with the hoax nuts, you never know what in the world they're saying.
    4
  28. It's part of the only two rules that conspiratards operate by. Rule (1): all evidence against their delusion is fake, no matter how real it is. Rule (2): all evidence supporting their delusion is real, no matter how ridiculous it is. Of course there are real photos of the Earth from space, thousands of them. But, in order to support the delusion, they simply must dismiss them all as fake. So, that's what they do.
    4
  29. "No human has stepped on the moon since this landing in 1969" "do a little research" Good gods, man. You clearly didn't even know that there were landings after 1969. That's how little you understand. How much "research" could you possibly have done, if you're unaware of Apollos 14, 15, 16, and 17? And, no, dewdrop, watching conspiracy videos isn't "research." You have absolutely no understanding of the topic. Don't tell people who know 1000000x more than you do to "do research."
    4
  30. "Thrust line below C of G easily could create tipping." Below, huh? And, you're an engineer? What's wrong with below the center of gravity? I mean, with rockets, you're more worried about center of mass, not center of gravity, but, ok, those two concepts are basically the same thing, so, I can forgive the misnomer. But, didn't you mean to the SIDE of the center of gravity? No? Below it will cause tipping? You're worried about a line of thrust that's directly below? Why? Also, rockets have these things called GIMBALS to deal with any center of gravity/mass issues. Nearly all rockets have them, because no rocket has 100% perfect center of mass/gravity. I'm surprised that an aviation engineer such as yourself would fail to understand something so simple. It's true that the ascent engine on the lunar module didn't have one, and it used RCS instead. So what? If you're an engineer, why would you choose YouTube comments as your forum to announce to the world that you've calculated that the lunar module wouldn't do what it was designed to do? Why aren't you publishing in the engineering journals? Only crackpots think YouTube comments are the place to provide this Earth-shattering revelation. You're not one of those, are you?
    4
  31. The answer is "no" for all practical purposes. But, technically, there are some trace gasses in extremely small quantities. Long story short, the moon has one trillionth of the atmosphere as Earth (literally). Can't technically say zero, but, at that low level, yes, it's perfectly acceptable to say it has zero atmosphere.
    4
  32. Optical resolution. This is a property of light that directly relates to the wavelength. Go look up the formula to determine the size of lens needed to see the Apollo stuff on the moon from the distance of Earth. Do the math. The answer is that you would need a lens 75 feet in diameter to see the Apollo landers as a single dot, or a lens a quarter mile in diameter to see them with enough detail to know what they are. The only way to make a telescope "more powerful" is to make them larger. And, thus far, the largest lens ever constructed is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million to build.
    4
  33. No wonder you don't know anything.
    4
  34. Who told you the original footage was all lost? Why would you believe such a silly thing?
    4
  35. I wish all people would be willing to display stuff like this on the internet. It would make the hiring process a lot easier. Usually, it takes months to figure out when people are so far gone, past the point of no return. But, people like you make it very easy to know that immediately.
    4
  36. So, let me make sure I understand you correctly. You made two replies. One reply said that you were going to ignore everything I stated, and you ranted about my "inadequacies" and other nonsense... anything you could to to shift the focus off of the facts, and targeting me personally instead, making it quite clear that you have no interest in anything I say. Yet, your second message was asking me more questions? Huh? And, your opening question basically proved that you didn't even read my first reply, because immediately, you claimed that I was saying that they couldn't jump more than a couple of feet... even though I clearly said that Duke jumped about 4 feet (double what you thought I said)? So, you won't read what I wrote, you'll ignore it, but, you want me to sit here and explain more stuff for you to ignore?
    4
  37. Stars during the daytime, taken by a low-res TV camera? Huh?
    4
  38. So, before you get the answers to your questions, you already came to your conclusions. Bravo. The Van Allen radiation is dangerous if you stay in the worst of it for over a week (or so). Hence, they don't go up into them with the ISS, because, as you already pointed out, those missions last for many months. Furthermore, the higher you go, the more energy you need to put into a craft. There's a big difference between lifting a craft a couple hundred miles vs. lifting a craft a couple hundred thousand miles. You seem to think that time is what matters, and not energy? Um, no. Thermodynamics. Go learn it. Yes, they send 4,000 pound orbiters to the moon, but, if you want to lift a manned craft, landers, etc. (total weight is about 100,000 pounds), that's a different thing entirely. Are you under the impression that the entirety of the world's aerospace engineers (who universally disagree with everything you're saying) don't understand how this stuff works, and you do?
    4
  39. You can't even spell "Apollo" correctly, yet, you think you understand it better than the last 50 years of aerospace experts across the entire globe. You conspiratards are always good for a laugh.
    4
  40. "I also noticed that the lunar surface never gets smaller as they descend" You got that nonsense from a silly video made by a lawnmower repairman who made that ridiculous claim. Anybody can simply watch any landing video, and measure the size of the craters on their screens, and watch it increase as they get closer to the surface. You didn't do that, and instead, decided just to regurgitate an incorrect claim. You even got that wrong, because the surface gets LARGER as they descend, not smaller. You couldn't even regurgitate your claim correctly.
    4
  41. Thanks for re-proving, as has been proven a thousand times before you, that all moon hoax believers have the reading and writing skills of a 2nd grader. If life cannot survive in the Van Allen belts, tell me, why did James Van Allen disagree with you? He stated that Apollo astronauts would receive less than 1% of a fatal dose because they went through quickly, and it would take at least a full week in the worst parts of the belts to kill astronauts. And, there are no space agencies anywhere on the planet that believe any differently. What do you know that they don't? Also, how do you explain that the Soviets sent two dogs into the belts, who lived for 3 weeks? (They probably got the fatal dose in a week or two, and it took a week or so to die.) How do you explain this?
    4
  42. YOU SAID: "If this was really true" == There's no "if." It's really true. YOU SAID: "why NASA haven’t gone back to the moon" == They DID go back!!! They sent NINE manned missions to the moon. Six of those missions landed on it. YOU SAID: "since 1969" == They sent 5 manned missions to the moon after 1969. YOU SAID: "with the advanced technology we have today?" == Technology has nothing to do with it. Congress pulled the funding. It was very expensive, you know.
    4
  43. "We have a hundred billion times more money now" No. "then" Than. "in the 60’s" Inflation matters too, dewdrop. "and we don’t go NOW with a million more experience and technology" And, how does this technology help fund a moon program? "But have no plans to ever go again!" Huh? Artemis was funded in 2019, dewdrop. They just sent Artemis 1 to the moon a few months ago. Artemis 2 will send people. "But in most peoples eyes we never actually ever went!" No. Your fringe cult isn't "most people." "So prove us all that we actually went and land in the same spots!" Why? So you can call the new missions fake also? Why go back to the same spots we've been? To convince cult members that they're wrong?
    4
  44. I was also too young during the moon landings to have had any part of them. But, as for "could not have been born at a better time for Apollo" ... well, my asperations would have been a bit different than yours. I'd have wished to have been born at a time to BE one of them, not just "be inspired" by them.
    4
  45. "Moon gravity doesn't cause tides... Thats just more lies." Huh? So, when the high tide is always when the moon is overhead, and the low tide is always when the moon is at 90 degrees from overhead, you think this means that the moon isn't causing the tides? It's just a big massive coincidence for the past thousand years of recorded history on the tides? How about gravimeter readings? When the moon is overhead, you can take a gravimeter reading, and it's always lighter. When the moon is on the opposite side of the globe, it's always heavier. If that's not because of the moon's position and its gravity, what is causing these things?
    3
  46. Only one? Which one was faked?
    3
  47. Yeah, I had dinner with Gene Cernan once, met him a few other times for drinks (he drank, but, I don't drink alcohol), a couple of informal interviews, etc. And, I almost bought his blue Corvette (but, I already had a '72, and didn't need a '74). I never met Young. He's one of the few moonwalkers I didn't meet. How was Young in person? He doesn't seem to talk much in some of the interviews I've seen. But, I know nothing about his actual personality.
    3
  48. TRANSLATION: "I don't understand anything about the topic, therefore the topic is fake."
    3
  49. So, the point was that you don't understand it. And, your reply is in the form of additional things you don't understand? Hilarious!!! You know, most people, the sane ones anyway, would seek to get educated in a topic before coming to conclusions. Not you, though. You prefer NOT to know anything.
    3
  50. You don't even need to trust NASA to get confirmation of Apollo. There are dozens of other sources of evidence outside of NASA.
    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. They brought back 850 pounds (across the 6 landing missions). They are still studying it for research purposes every single day. They kept some samples untouched (waiting for new technology to study it). Just last year, they opened one core sample that had never been opened before.
    3
  53. For the command/service modules, they used fuel cells. Look them up if you don't know what that means. For the lunar modules, they used silver-zinc batteries. These batteries pack in more energy per pound than almost any other kind of battery (at least ones that are stable enough to place onto a spacecraft that's going to be bounced around). But, they were one-time-use batteries (they couldn't be recharged). And, they were outrageously expensive. If I recall correctly, each lunar module battery (that was about equivalent to a car battery) costed about $50,000 each. That's about $400,000 each in today's money. You don't commonly see batteries like that nowadays because there's very little purpose in one-time-use batteries that cost a fortune. But, for the lunar module, it made sense. Also, they shut down the electronics while not in use. They didn't leave the computers on while sitting on the lunar surface. And, radios don't consume very much energy. Yes, the craft were like "living and breathing machines" with pumps and electronics, etc. But, they had an entire bank of batteries to last them throughout the mission.
    3
  54. No gravity on the moon? Sigh. Why in the world would you believe such a thing? I mean, not only does that demonstrate that you do not understand physics at the most entry level, but, it demonstrates that you are unable to even key in "gravity on the moon" to any basic search engine. What do you think even holds the moon together, if not gravity? What do you think causes the tides on Earth, if not the moon's gravity?
    3
  55. Is this a joke? You're linking a video to an inept musician who has no understanding of the topic he's singing about? Really?
    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. Any "trained eye" would know that you cannot see stars on film that has been set for brightly lit (short) exposure. Go take a photography 101 class. Or, just go try to photograph some stars yourself, and see what kind of time exposure is required.
    3
  58. Yet, what happened? You told me (in the other video/thread) that if I gave you a single piece of evidence in favor of Apollo, you'd demonstrate why it's wrong. I did exactly that, and, immediately, you fell on your face, and made up a silly excuse about why none of the dozens of countries that tracked Apollo could actually track Apollo. You said the Earth spun too fast to track Apollo. I corrected you. And, I asked you how you explain it, and why those hundreds of engineers in dozens of countries (including enemies) thought they were tracking Apollo, and you ran for the hills, never to return. Now, you're here, spewing new gibberish. Why?
    3
  59. Take a look at some of the highly magnified photos of the lunar dust. The dust is basically shattered rock, with extremely jagged and sharp edges, which gets stuck in fibers very easily.
    3
  60. Do you just go from video to video to video, posting this same nonsense?
    3
  61.  @Cliffmchrist  What in the world are you talking about? I'm not the one who cut-n-pasted the same message into about 50 different videos.
    3
  62.  @nicsandee123  Yes, it's quite amazing that the conspiracy people just look at a footprint (large grooves), look at the inner boot (smooth with a layer of Velcro), and then scream "FAKE!!" without taking the time to realize there was an overshoe boot used on the moon. It just goes to show that they're not really interested in the actual information. They're only interested in adding to the pile of nonsense that they use to defame Apollo. They won't take 2 minutes to verify if their own claims are accurate. To them, the only important thing is to make the claims... they don't care if their claims are true or not... just making the claim that Apollo was fake is the important part.
    3
  63. The Concorde is a lie. If they could carry 100 passengers and luggage at mach 2 for 3000 miles back then, why now in 2022 we can't?
    3
  64. The air tanks were pure oxygen, and the suits had lithium hydroxide scrubbers to allow the astronauts to keep rebreathing the same "air" over and over until the oxygen was consumed. I know the conspiracy videos tell you to complain about this, and compare it to a scuba tank. But, for a frame of reference, the Apollo oxygen system was about 25x more efficient than a scuba tank just under the water line, and 100x more efficient than a scuba tank submerged in 90 feet of water, where a vast majority of the oxygen is just exhaled and lost in bubbles.
    3
  65. There is hand movement in the video, but, the rover was designed to be driven with minimal motion. Frankly, I find the Apollo 16 rover video to be the most powerful evidence of "faking" Apollo... but, that's not saying much, because it's easily explained (just as every other Apollo objection is easily explained).
    3
  66. For the same reason you cannot see them on Earth in the daytime. It's too bright to see dim stars.
    3
  67. Pfttt. Proven? Um, no.
    3
  68. An interview with Marcus Allen? The inept photographer who doesn't understand photography? The guy who didn't even realize that the cameras could detach from the spacesuits? They guy who said Apollo 11 was fake because the angles were all wrong, and he thought there were two cameras used on the lunar surface on Apollo 11 (there was only one used), because he had no idea that Aldrin and Armstrong passed the camera between them? That guy? Why would anybody pay attention to a single word that crackpot says?
    3
  69. Do you REALLY believe that NASA managed to somehow "bluff" radar dishes all over Earth, including ones in enemy countries, managed to somehow perfectly replicate 1/6th gravity movements on video before CGI even existed, managed to fool thousands of geologists about the 850 pounds of moon rocks brought back on the missions, and yet, somehow, forgot to equip the lander with an outside camera? Really? And, the only conclusion is that there was a cameraman? Really? That's how you think?
    3
  70. You cannot capture stars in the background on Earth, why should you be able to capture them on the moon? Do you have any idea what level of exposure you need in a camera to capture stars?
    3
  71.  @pasisovi  Yes, the least educated people think Apollo was a hoax. The world's experts do not.
    3
  72.  @Carl-mw3ft  QUOTE: "and so I am" --- a crackpot.
    3
  73. Huh? The landing coordinates are 30° 44' 58.3" east longitude by 20° 9' 50.5" north latitude. Apollo 17 landed in the most "remote" (deepest off of the curvature of the moon) of all of the Apollo landing sites. Why would you think the Earth angle would be 70 degrees?
    3
  74. So, like all hoax nuts, you come to your conclusions first, and ask questions second. Have you looked for the telemetry? Which type of telemetry do you want? Where have you looked for it so far? Or, hmmm, did you just blindly believe a conspiracy video that lied and told you it was missing?
    3
  75. Did you even read my reply? Why is it that none of you hoax nuts can read?
    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. They took hundreds of photos of Earth. Have you bothered looking at the photo archive? Who told you that they never took a photo of Earth?
    3
  80. You don't believe that claim? Wow. How many of the astronauts have you met? I mean, you'd have been hard-pressed to find people who knew the names, "Jack Schmitt" and "Gene Cernan" during that timeframe. Sure, you'd see an occasional TV appearance. But, these guys could go to the grocery store, and nobody bothered them (because nobody knew who they were). Neil Armstrong... different story entirely. The man couldn't set foot in the public without being mobbed. Yes, the public largely lost interest after Apollo 11.
    3
  81. 1) The act of jumping is not linear with gravity. The mechanics of jumping are far more complex. In a nutshell, yes, they could jump higher, but, one of the issues is that your legs are pushing the MASS, not just a matter of weight. Furthermore, they're doing this inside a pressure suit with bulky boots and hoses and a backpack, etc. Movements are somewhat limited. 2) Charlie Duke jumped about around 4 feet. So, get your facts straight. None of you deniers are ever interested in the facts. You just try to hunt down these ridiculous "gotcha" moments, declaring what you think astronauts should or shouldn't do. You believe they were on wires anyway, right? So, what would be the big deal about lifting higher with those wires?
    3
  82. Oh, and I guess I misread your reply about not jumping more than a couple of feet. I thought you were saying the opposite. Alright. Well, the rest of what I wrote still stands. Why should I reply to you about new topics, when you make it perfectly clear that you're not interested in the answers?
    3
  83.  @ChrisPBacon777  Just spot-checked a few messages from a couple of months ago in other threads. Their algorithms now are even going back and blocking/screening partial posts. Mostly, it's just blocking entire posts. You just can't see them any longer. But, I see a few where it just blocks certain paragraphs. This is ridiculous.
    3
  84. Did you expect to see stars in the daytime, in a low-res slow-scan video feed?
    3
  85.  @vfpaintjobs  And, you're PROUD of this stupidity?
    3
  86. You heard it, huh? Well, obviously that means you should believe it. Nobody has ever lied.
    3
  87. Hundreds of such photos. "Apollo stellar photography."
    3
  88. Let me get this straight, you know THAT little about Apollo, such as the fact that you were unaware about how the camera worked... but you think you know enough about Apollo to say that the entire world's physicists and rocket scientists are all wrong??? Do I understand you correctly? You know NOTHING, simultaneously to claiming to know more than every expert on Earth?? Um, what?
    3
  89. Dewdrop, temperature doesn't work the same in a vacuum as it does in an atmosphere. Furthermore, the moon's surface temperature was below zero when they landed. It heated up as time went on, but, you undoubtedly want to pretend that the lunar surface magically heats up instantly. It doesn't. The surface was never all that hot when the astronauts were there. Furthermore, the minute you say "air conditioner" is the minute you divulge that you don't have the slightest clue about how any of this equipment worked.
    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. FYI: They sent manned missions to the moon 9 times (not 7), and landed 6 of those times. 24 astronauts went to the moon, and 12 of them walked on it. (You'd think that 9x3=27, so, why is it only 24? The answer is that 3 of them went twice, Cernan, Lovell, and Young.)
    2
  92. Yes, I understand. I'm just being a bit of a stickler for detail. I managed to prevent myself from correcting your "hundreds of ground crew" (it was actually about 3,000), but, yeah, I guess I just stopped preventing myself from correcting that one also, because I just wrote it also. Sorry.
    2
  93. First of all, the mechanics of jumping are not that simple. But, for discussion, let's just say you're right. OK. But, you don't get to compare jumping on Earth in a Tshirt and shorts and running shoes vs. jumping on the moon in a bulky suit. Nope. If you're going to simplify the act of jumping to the concept of 1/6th gravity = 6x jumping height, then you have to take the exact same conditions. So, go right ahead, put on an 88 pound pressure suit with 13 layers, plus an 80 pound primary life support backpack, plus a 40 pound backup life support pack on top of that, plus around 20 pounds of tools and packs and hoses. That's about 228 pounds you're carrying. Now, pressurize the suit to about 19 PSI to simulate the relative pressure your suit will have on the moon. Put on some bulky moon boots. And, now see how high you can jump while carrying that 228 pounds in that bulky pressure suit. Then multiply the height you jumped by 6, and let me know how high that is.
    2
  94. Well, this issue is easily solved then. You're wrong. The moon has gravity. And, I have no idea why people like you think it doesn't. How do you think the dust/rocks/mountains even stay on the moon without floating away in the first place, if there wasn't gravity to do so? Are you unfamiliar with the fact that the moon's gravity causes the tides on Earth? I thought any 9 year old knows that much, at least. Not you, though. You believe the moon has no gravity. Bravo. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail.
    2
  95. Pffttt. Um, ok. It took thousand upon thousands of people to get a Saturn V off of the launch pad. And, only 13 of them ever flew. That 363 foot tall rocket would stand out there on the launch pad for about a month while all of the technical people prepared it for flight. And, the launch could be seen (and heard) for hundreds of miles. Yet, you're suggesting that, somehow, they snuck off a secret launch? And, hmmm, nobody noticed that a Saturn V was missing? None of the thousands of people who built the Saturn V rockets ever wondered what happened to the "extra" one you're suggesting that they built (yet nobody knows about)?
    2
  96.  @honzalev1  Good grief. You don't understand ANYTHING.
    2
  97. So, like all hoax nuts, you came to your conclusions first, and asked questions second. Did you really want answers? I'm guessing not. None of you nuts ever actually want answers to your own questions.
    2
  98. Huh? Why would you say we're struggling to get something into space? What are you talking about?
    2
  99. Good grief. Yes, people lost interest. I mean, you should talk to your fellow hoax nuts and get your stories straight. The common conspiracy garbage about Apollo 13 is that it was staged to gain attention after everyone was losing interest. So, they pretended Apollo 13 exploded in space and barely got back home alive. That's what your fellow hoax nuts say to explain why they'd "fake" an explosion half way to the moon if they were never half way to the moon... because the public had lost interest. But, now, you're saying the public didn't lose interest. I wish you people could agree on how this hoax is supposed to work.
    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. I don't understand the question. Why do you believe we shouldn't see shadows?
    2
  102. By using a huge rocket and a spacecraft.
    2
  103.  @nuketownwarrior530  There isn't a single particle physicist, aerospace engineer, or radiobiologist, anywhere on the planet, who agrees with the bullshit you just spewed. If you think those things are true, then go right ahead, and write up your calculations, and publish them in a science journal, and/or a medical journal on radiobiology. You will win a Nobel Prize for overturning everything known about radiation if you're found to be correct. Good luck with that. But, I'm guessing you're just spewing that nonsense because you heard it from other conspiratards just as clueless as you are, and that you wouldn't know how to calculate those things if your life depended on it.
    2
  104. In lunar orbit? They only ducked to the dark side for a short while, and then were on the light side again. On the surface, no batteries lasted through a lunar nighttime. I'm not sure why you say "back side" though. You mean the side furthest from Earth?
    2
  105. Yeah, but it didn't work very well, and they had to replace it with clamps on the next EVA.
    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.  @ronaldb4885  I wouldn't hold my breath for 2024. Congress isn't funding it at a pace to actually make it by 2024. More like double that amount of time, unless they pour the money in faster than they're doing now. NASA can talk about 2024 all they want. Nobody cares until the money is actually granted to meet that date, which it has not been.
    2
  108. Congress ended the Apollo moonshot program, making Apollo 17 the last one. They still used some of the Apollo rockets and craft for Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz (Earth orbit missions) for the next few years, but, once they used all of the command modules that were built, that was the end. They still had two 99% complete Saturn V rockets remaining, and a couple of landers that were about 80% completed, but, those were just preserved as museum pieces. Is it possible to launch missions secretly? Um, no. That big 363 foot tall Saturn V rocket stood on the launchpad for a month while they got it ready to launch. It took about 3,000 people to get one off the ground. And, the launch itself could be seen and heard for dozens of miles. There's no way to "sneak" one of those off the ground. A big lie? Huh? Based upon what? How do you jump from Apollo 17 being the last mission, to the notion that it's a lie? There's a last Concorde flight. Does that mean it's a lie? There's a last SR71 flight. Does that mean it's a lie? Is congress never allowed to shut a program down without it being a lie?
    2
  109. How many times and in how many videos are you going to keep repeating the same cut and pasted nonsense? Why? Why do you do this? It's been answered 1000x, yet you keep posting over and over. What's wrong with you?
    2
  110. Don't worry about me. Worry about yourself. Go back to school. Learn something. I suggest you start over at about the 3rd grade, and repeat everything after that.
    2
  111.  @vacuumandgaspressurecoexisting  When you have absolutely no chance to deal with the evidence presented, yeah, that's what you nuts do, you ignore the input. It's why you are the laughable crackpot that you are.
    2
  112. Yes, about 50 years ago.
    2
  113. "They had duct tape that would withstand the high temperature of the day and the very low temp of the shadow." You have no understanding whatsoever about how temperature operates in space. Don't pretend you do. "How the folded the car inside the moon lander is still a mystery" Huh? There are hundreds of animations, photos, etc. And, all you need to do is watch "lunar rover deployment" and you can see it done live on the moon on Apollo 15, as well as practice runs on Earth. Why is this a "mystery" to you? "And taking 5000+ photographs, while unloading, driving, doing scientific research, installing seismometers and explosives, posing for photos, taking geologic samples by drilling and harvesting, eating and sleeping, sending videos, and giving interviews in just 3 days." Huh? There are about 7,000 photos taken from the lunar surface across the totality of all 6 missions that landed (12 astronauts). That's an average of about 583 per astronaut. You don't think that's possible? Huh? "Amazing that the moon lander stays stable on course, after takeoff after they loaded it with moonstones just a short time after their last walk on the moon, without influencing the center of mass of the lunar module." The RCS had to constantly adjust the trajectory. What ARE you talking about? Have you never watched those takeoff videos, where you see the craft rocking back and forth because it's off-balance? Good gods. Why are you soooooo proud that every single thing you state is wrong?
    2
  114. I don't know. How did they not notice the giant space turtle on which the flat earth rests, as described in the Hindu Siddhāntasundara?
    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. Not much horsepower upstairs, eh?
    2
  117. And, it's blocking my reply, so, I'll try to split it up into parts.
    2
  118. 1) Who told you it was 240 degrees? Why would you believe such a thing?
    2
  119. 3) When they said in this documentary that "the quick fix held out," well, I'm not sure why they said that. If they just meant for the rest of that EVA, well, yes and no. They didn't mount the makeshift clamp fender until the next EVA. But, to claim that the duct tape held out is false, because the fender (and the resulting dust) continued to be a problem for the rest of that EVA.
    2
  120. 2) The duct tape didn't work anyway. They abandoned that, and ended up using clamps and some pages from a flight manual to manufacture a makeshift fender. AS17-137-20979 if you're interested.
    2
  121. That's a photo catalog number, which apparently YouTube censors. Good grief. Like a photo of a fender is really hazardous to view.
    2
  122.  @timparziale8762  Nothing you say even remotely reflects how radar or radio telescopes work. You cannot "relay" a radio telescope signal. You cannot "relay" a radar signal. Not the raw signals anyway. You can repeat them, but, for a raw radio/radar signal into a dish, um, no. Good grief. Stop pretending you understand things you do not.
    2
  123.  @timparziale8762  Hilarious!!! You think that water and oxygen don't get inside meteorites? Wow. Anyway, if you think that's the case, and you think the 850 pounds of Apollo lunar material were just some magical mysterious meteorites, why aren't you publishing in actual science journals!?!!? Why would you choose a YouTube comment to "reveal" this massive secret that no geologist on the planet knows?
    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. And, it's blocking another one of my replies. This YouTube censorship is ridiculous. So, again, I'll keep this shorter. Since you think you know so much about radar, can you please explain how any ground based system could replicate the Doppler effect of a craft going thousands of miles per hour? How would any ground station ever reproduce the Doppler frequency shift? The rest of what you wrote is dramatically wrong also, because you don't understand anything about radar or radio. But, just focusing on this one aspect, tell me how any ground system could ever produce anything besides zero Doppler shift?
    2
  127. You obviously aren't reading anything I'm writing beyond one or two sentences. I never claimed a radio signal couldn't be relayed. I tried explaining repeatedly that if you relay it or repeat it, it's not going to result in "bluffing" the original dish that receives it. I even said exactly (quoting myself): "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." And, once again, you have refused to answer a single question or challenge.
    2
  128. And, it's blocking me, yet again. No, that's not what I said, and if you'd lift a finger to actually read anything I wrote, you'd understand that. But, you don't. You read one or two sentences, then ignore the rest. And, you refuse to answer any questions. So, again, how would any ground station replicate the Doppler effect of a craft moving thousands of miles per hour? Why won't you answer?
    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. Tim, c'mon man, it's over. You've demonstrated repeatedly that you don't understand anything about these topics. And, you're not even reading the answers to your own questions/statements. In one ear, out the other. What is your point here? You're just going to say, "there is no evidence," and then, every time someone gives you a piece of evidence, you're just going to stick your head in the sand and say "no, it doesn't exist"?
    2
  131. Oh, so, the last 70 years of aiming dishes at the moon and bouncing radio off of the moon... you don't think it's really happening? You think radio is bouncing off of the magnetosphere (which doesn't affect radio)? Alright, here's how you prove it... go right ahead and do a moon bounce when there's no moon in sight of the dish. What are you waiting for?
    2
  132. Again, you were asked this before, by multiple people, can you name one peer reviewed paper in any recognized journal anywhere in the world that a geologist has claimed that the Apollo moon rocks cannot be distinguished from meteorites found in Antarctica? Why won't you answer?
    2
  133. Once again, you refuse to answer the questions. Let us all know when you replicate a moon bounce without pointing your dish at the moon, ok? There's a Nobel Prize in it for you when you can do that.
    2
  134. Then do it. What are you waiting for? Do the exact same thing that the moon bouncers do. If you think that the last 70 years of thousands of people bouncing radio off the moon are all mistaken, and the signal is actually bouncing off of the ionosphere, go ahead and do it yourself. Talk to someone half way around the world (like the moon bouncers do), with 2.5 seconds of signal delay (like the moon bouncers get), except, don't aim your dish at the moon. Aim it just at the ionosphere when the moon is not in sight. Then, explain why nobody in history has ever done it before?
    2
  135. So, that's it? You have the opportunity to demonstrate your extreme expertise in radio, geology, and radar, by demonstrating yourself that the entire world's experts are wrong... you'd make tens of millions of dollars in Nobel Prize money, book money, and on the lecture circuits... yet, all you can do is stick your head in the sand and say (on a YouTube comment), "no"?
    2
  136. Really? That's the most you could muster? A single letter as your response? Well, I guess that's better than your normal response when your head explodes, and you're incapable of addressing anything that goes against your delusions. Usually, your responses are just "laksdu ogjalks larioeis qifjoasji" (and stuff like that, like you're having a stroke). Did you have your stroke on the first letter this time?
    2
  137.  @Mooseracks  YOU SAID: "is this all you are capable of...insults and harassment..." == Wait, what? What are you talking about? You go around insulting the astronauts and the 450,000 people involved with Apollo every day? "Don't insult me while I'm insulting everyone involved with Apollo"?? YOU SAID: "why not comment on the subject matter rather that attacking someone personally...or is that too tough for you" == Um, dummy, I tried that, remember? Many many times. What were your replies whenever I pointed out how wrong you were? You literally replied with, "nvoaids alisrualid, vuir2isr, oapugsas," as if you had a stroke. You did this over and over on multiple topics. You've never once in history admitted being wrong about ANYTHING. All you do is stick your head in the sand, spew some gibberish, and never post in that thread again. I believe the last time, you just replied with "H" as your entire response to any questions or challenges I put forth. Go see a doctor.
    2
  138.  @Cliffmchrist  Have you completely lost your mind? What IS wrong with you? Good grief. I don't know anybody ANYBODY **ANYBODY** who defends Apollo in these comments more than I do. And, you're accusing me of denying Apollo. Good grief.
    2
  139.  @ErickJimenez-fm6zb  YOU SAID: "Who film amstrong coming down from the spaceship if everybody were inside." == This is easily found on Google, if you actually cared to know the answer. But, I suspect you don't really want the answer, and you'd prefer ignorance. Am I correct? YOU SAID: "Who ever was filming the astronaut, wasn't jumping like everybody else." == It was a camera mounted to the side of the lander. YOU SAID: "It is curious that the same camera was following them all over the places." == Who ever said it was the same camera? You can easily Google the camera equipment used on all of the Apollo missions, you know.
    2
  140. The boots were not sealed. They were an "overshoe" to the interior shoe, which was sealed. They built the suits so the wrists and ankles had some overlap area to act as dust shields. Conspiratards think this overlap area means that it wasn't airtight underneath. But, conspiratards are wrong, as usual.
    2
  141.  @shillseeker9538  No, dummy. Trump has no ability to grant any blank checks. The money is granted by CONGRESS. The president can request money from congress, but cannot grant the money himself. And, yes, it's a massive risk for Trump/Pence/Bridenstine to run around, talking about 2024, before congress grants the money to do it by then. Congress hadn't granted a single dime to manned moon landings when Trump/Pence/Bridenstine started publicly talking about 2024. Not a single dime. They finally granted some money in 2019, but certainly not enough to meet a 2024 deadline. But, Bridenstine is still out there talking about 2024 anyway. Personally, I think it's going to backfire on them. I don't think congress is going to grant that kind of money to meet that timeline. And, it'll become just another empty promise, like thousands of others in presidential history. They'll be lucky to make it by 2028 or 2030... and there's always the risk that congress will pull the funding altogether. None of that changes the fact that Apollo missions went to the moon 9 times from 1968 through 1972.
    2
  142. Once again, if you are going to refuse to answer my replies and questions, no, I'm not going to answer any additional stuff from you. You are a high school dropout with absolutely no understanding of the topic. And, you're so ruined by your own addiction problems that you cannot even form coherent thoughts.
    2
  143. Sorry for that, must be pretty rough. Have you considered maybe a dating site?
    2
  144.  @prowlingtiger2226  YOU SAID: "we literally plan to go back to the moon by like 2024" == Don't hold your breath. Artemis wasn't approved by congress at a pace of funding to make it by then. Congress only approved the funding at a rate that would put them on the moon by around 2028-2030. Things can change, of course. Funding can go up. Funding can go down. Funding can be pulled altogether. But, anyway, my point is, don't hold your breath for 2024.
    2
  145. No, the Challenger astronauts are not still alive. How stupid can you be? Do you REALLY believe those astronauts are still around, doing regular everyday jobs, and nobody notices? How dumb are you? As for the acronym "NASA" meaning something in Hebrew "Nasha," again, how stupid can you be? ALMOST ANY 4-letter acronym means something in some old language. Why Hebrew? Why not Latin for "fish trap"? Should I say you're a woman because the root of "Jo" means female in Japanese? Should I say you're a criminal because the root of "Jo" means "to assault" or "to strike" in some other languages? I mean, good grief. "NASA" stands for "National Air and Space Administration." How pathetic do you have to be to go hunt down some ancient language not even used any longer, and cherry-pick some definition of "Nasha" (not even spelled the same), as if that's supposed to mean something? How far down the toilet have you flushed your brain away? And, dummy, why Hebrew anyway? Our alphabet doesn't even really mean anything in the original Hebrew. Good grief. You morons will cling to ANY stupid thing to support your dumb delusions.
    2
  146. Apollo 11 was in black and white. The rest of the missions were in color. Color TV had been around for a while, of course, before the Apollo missions. The color TV standards were actually established in the 1950s. But, it was expensive, so most programs remained in black and white through the mid 1960s. Color was fully available by the Apollo missions. But, for the first landing, they wanted the most reliable signal that they could use (black and white), not dependent upon a high gain antenna. Apollo 11 brought a high gain antenna, but they never bothered to deploy it. They only had a couple of hours on the lunar surface, and they were only going to deploy it if they needed it for the black and white camera. But, the steerable antenna worked good enough for the black and white camera, so, they never deployed the high-gain. Anyway, the point is, they wanted to be very conservative and use a black and white camera for Apollo 11 (less "bandwidth" than color - though that's actually not quite the correct term to use). But, for all of the remaining missions, they used color TV cameras.
    2
  147.  @Cliffmchrist  It's as if YouTube just has a randomizer or something. You cannot even post 20 words without getting blocked.
    2
  148. Sustained by something else?? He FELL!!! He WASN'T sustained by anything, else he wouldn't have fallen.
    2
  149. Yeah, everyone is stupid except you.
    2
  150.  @pasisovi  That's how delusions work. You've gotten yourself so messed up that you believe that it's BETTER to know nothing, rather than to be educated.
    2
  151.  @pasisovi  I'm not the one who thinks that being uneducated is a BETTER position than being educated. That's YOU who thinks that. That's just delusion. That's not twisting any words. That's simply delusion.
    2
  152. MaYbE if U tpyE lOtz Uv CapITaL luTTrs iT MeENz Ur KerReKt.
    2
  153. It keeps killing my response (YouTube crazy censorship). Trying to break it up into pieces.
    2
  154. YOU SAID: "If you were at the equator and 0 longitude the Earth would appear directly above you at 90 degrees." == Depends. That's just the average. The moon wobbles by about 8 degrees. It's not 100% perfectly tidally locked. YOU SAID: "On Apollo 17 they’re 20 degrees above hence the Earth would appear 70 degrees from the horizon . True there’s a longitude correction that would apply," == Yes, it's also +30 degrees off center in longitude. Mighty convenient you'd just ignore it... especially given that the longitude is the bigger number. You picked the smallest possible number intentionally, to paint your false narrative. In reality, the actual angle is greater than either the 20+ or 30+ degrees of latitude and longitude. The net angle is almost 40 degrees. Funny that you chose to only pick the 20 degree angle, when the real angle is more like 40 degrees. And, depending on where the moon was in the 8 degree wobble cycle during the mission, the angle could have been even greater (with the Earth even lower in the sky). No matter which way you spin it, sorry, but you're just plain lying when you say it's 70 degrees. You even originally said that it should be "at least 70 degrees" in the sky. The actual angle figuring longitude and latitude, and factoring in where it may have been in the 8 degree wobble cycle, was a lot closer to 45 degrees than 70 degrees.
    2
  155. I have repeatedly tried to respond, but everything I write about these next few lines is getting blocked. So, I'll just trim this down to bare minimum. YOU SAID: "BUT the point is that the Earth is much higher in the sky than what you see on this video." == Wrong. The photo in this video has been cropped to only the upper half, and it was taken from a very low angle (Cernan was squatting on the ground looking upward while taking it).
    2
  156. I have tried many times to post detailed responses that include reference videos and photos. But, it keeps blocking me from referring to sources and names of videos/photos. The point is, look at the original material, not these edited documentaries.
    2
  157. Anyway, when you factor in the following, it's pretty clear that you're just plain wrong: 1) You got the angle dramatically wrong. The Earth is far lower than you're dishonestly representing. 2) You're looking at a cropped photo in this video that doesn't take into account the angles very well to begin with. 3) I am not sure where in the 8 degree wobble the moon was during Apollo 17, and I don't really care, but, obviously, if it was in a "favorable" stage of the wobble, that drops the Earth even lower in the sky. 4) Cernan ducked low (making the camera look upward), thus accounting for the angles even more. 5) You are clearly deluded. YOU SAID: "Also the Earth would appear 4X bigger than what the Moon looks like to us on Earth." == Yes. So what? Are you saying it's not? How can you tell from a cropped photo in the first place? This isn't even the original picture. And, you also need to look at the type of lens that was used, etc. You know, even on Earth, you can just change lenses and distances to relative objects, and the moon appears to change sizes in photos. Seriously, it looks bigger just by zooming more. It's really as simple as that. Cropped photos, zoomed in, zoomed out, whatever... you need to know these things before you just eyeball it and assume it's wrong.
    2
  158.  @stevegagnon1539  Thanks for proving you didn't read/absorb anything I wrote. You're dead wrong about the angles. And, you made it very clear that you came to your conclusions about the angles first, before you even knew what the angles were. And, now, you're STILL demonstrating that you don't understand the angles. If you're not going to pay attention, and all you want to do is keep spewing conspiracy garbage, and ignore all input, there's really no point here. The actual angle was just shy of 40, not the 20 degrees or 30 degrees you asserted, then we have to accommodate the moon's wobble after that, which easily could push the angle to over 40. And, I already explained the photo was cropped, thus making you unaware of the angle, and that Cernan was bent way over, taking the photo upward. It's on video. Go watch it.
    2
  159. Well, you might not believe it, but, yes, it's true. The public lost interest. Armstrong and Aldrin became household names, and couldn't go out in public without being mobbed. But, Cernan and Schmitt could go to the grocery store, out to dinner, to a movie, whatever, and almost nobody even knew who they were (because the public had lost interest).
    2
  160. The suits leaked. So what? Why are so many people under the impression that the suits couldn't leak? But, with 24 layers, including 13 layers in the outer garment alone, consisting of ripstop fabrics, and a self-sealing layer beneath it, yeah, it would take a lot more than a tumble to tear any kind of significant hole.
    2
  161. The Earthrise photos were taken from the command modules while orbiting the moon. Have you ever looked at any of those photos? It seems fairly obvious.
    2
  162.  @devilsoffspring5519  Hongson ngo is referring to a famous conspiratard quote mine, in which astronaut Don Pettit said that we lost the technology. And, he also said it was "destroyed." Of course, sane people realize the context of what he meant. He simply meant that none of it exists any longer. There are no functional landers, no functional command modules, no functional Saturn V boosters, no training facilities, no launch facilities, etc. The contractors who built everything are long gone, dead, or retired. Most of the contracting companies have closed their doors, or were bought out. Most of the buildings were knocked down or retooled. In that sense, it's been "lost/destroyed." But, conspiracy nutbags don't care about context. They listen to one-line quote mines, and then assume that's all they need to know about Apollo to call it "fake."
    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. So, you apologize for not responding to any of my questions, or reading any of my responses, by further avoiding answering any questions, or reading any responses? What's wrong with you?
    2
  165. I am not playing this game of repeating myself. If your scroll up is broken, that's your own problem.
    2
  166. You refused to answer a single one of the bunches of questions I asked. Stop your pretending and lying.
    2
  167. I will not play your game. It's very clear that your only purpose is to evade and waste people's time. People like you are just plain trash.
    2
  168. YOU SAID: "It is unbelievable that the Apollo 11 mission in 1969 until now 50 years later there are no more missions." == Pffttt. Apollo 12. Apollo 13. Apollo 14. Apollo 15. Apollo 16. Apollo 17. Those don't count? You don't think there were more missions after Apollo 11? You're in a video which is talking about Apollo 17... saying that Apollo 11 was the first and only mission?? YOU SAID: "Fake moon landing and put man on the moon.. are only films like Hollywood productions ... only Stanley Kubrick can did. Nasa hoax..moon landing." == Good grief, you're dumb.
    2
  169. Initials TDC, not the entire name.
    2
  170.  @lorichet  As usual, all you've proven is your ability to swallow any garbage you see. You've managed to find people who know even less about Apollo than you do, and you've chosen them to "learn" from via their conspiracy videos. How ridiculous can you be?
    2
  171.  @lorichet  You're afraid to read any input that goes against your silly opinions. Yeah, that's pretty paranoid delusional.
    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. I mean, I normally wouldn't even engage someone who proudly displays this level of broken thinking. But, just out of curiosity, how do you even square that away in your mind? The scientific community has understood the shape of the Earth for thousands upon thousands of years, as far back as Egyptian pyramid times or earlier. Ancient mariners used the stars for navigation of the globe, which doesn't work if the Earth is flat, it only works on a sphere. This stuff has been resolved for hundreds/thousands of years. What compels you to try to throw yourself back into the prehistoric times for no reason? And, how would NASA, formed in 1958, possibly ever "cover up" something that has been known since long before NASA even existed?
    2
  174. It's not a technology issue. The USA was not lacking any technology required to go to the moon in 1969-1972. Sorry, you don't get to just quote-mine (out of context) three words once spoken by one astronaut, and then assume you know what you're talking about. You clearly do not.
    2
  175. Diddly, you rambled on about physics, spewing formula after formula. Yet, you clearly never applied any of those formulas to the videos. Calculate it. What are you waiting for? Don't sit here and spew formulas, pretending it means something. Go demonstrate that the astronauts' trajectories don't follow the correct arc. Good luck with that. I told you, I'm not playing your game, ya crank.
    2
  176. Yes, the descent stages are still on the moon, and Arizona State University's LRO camera has taken hundreds of photos of every landing site from just about every sun angle possible. You can go to their site and view them yourself.
    2
  177. Well, neither do you, if you cannot even spell his name correctly.
    2
  178.  @ChrisPBacon777  Seriously? You don't understand? Let me explain: 3/4 is the brakes under trueele bullets!!! Really are reports of emptiness. 19 is the president of hum. This is what it's like to be open wide. Do you finally understand now?
    2
  179.  @ChrisPBacon777  Are you able to see my replies in this thread? Or, has YouTube's censorship algorithms hit an all time high in craziness? Right now, I can only see my replies if I'm logged in. But, if I use a browser that's not logged in, I can't even see my messages. It says there are 8 replies, but I can only see 3 of them (and none of my own).
    2
  180.  @ChrisPBacon777  And it blocked my reply to you just now. Not one bad word. Not one offense thing. Nothing. But, it blocked me.
    2
  181.  @ChrisPBacon777  Yes, it appears that YouTube has run some sort of algorithm to block others from seeing messages. If you copy/paste someone's words back to them in your response (which is a vast majority of the messages I post), now it blocks anybody else from seeing the message. It's more than just that, though. They're also blocking stuff for who-knows-what reasons, even if you don't copy/paste words. It seems that they've only gone back a few weeks (thus far anyway). But, I wouldn't be surprised if 95% of my messages I've ever posted will soon disappear.
    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. Esthersar, Your dishonesty has reached new heights, which is very difficult to do, since everything you've ever posted has been a complete lie. But, here you said: "Why did they not reset any of the cameras to long exposure to be able to photograph the stars?" I have answered this question from you in previous threads, multiple times. I told you that they DID take 125 photos of the stars that exact way, using the Carruthers UV telescopic camera on a tripod mount. I gave you EXACTLY what you asked for, and the EXACT name of the telescope and the photos. And, here you are, 2 months later, claiming the same thing, saying that they never took the photos that I already told you they took. How low can you go? How bad is your disorder, when you feel the need to constantly lie?
    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. I don't think he is including the laps around Earth in the 380,000 km.
    2
  186. You do know that Artemis 1 is sitting on the launchpad this very minute in preparation to go to the moon, right?
    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. @KH4L0Dz Here's that cut-n-paste I promised from the last posted message: == One example out of hundreds of possible examples: the radio telescopes, the radar tracking, and radio communications devices. For example, dozens of countries (including enemy countries) tracked the Apollo missions with radar and/or radio telescopes. Like, the Soviets sent Luna 15 (unmanned probe) to the moon a couple of days ahead of Apollo 11. The plan was to stay in orbit around the moon until Apollo 11 got there, wait for the astronauts to land, then send Luna 15 down to the lunar surface while the astronauts were still there, then robotically grab some lunar samples, then race Apollo 11 back home with the first lunar samples in history. Unfortunately for them, it was a very rushed mission, and they ended up making some mistakes and crashing it into a lunar mountain while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the lunar surface. But, the fact remains, the Soviets tracked both Apollo 11 and their Luna 15 mission, using radar and radio telescopes. Numerous countries did this also. It wasn't just the Soviets and the USA doing the tracking. Spain. Australia. Madagascar. Canary Islands. Ascension Island. Wales. Britain. Turks & Caicos. Bahamas. Guam. The list goes on and on. All of those countries, and more, used their radar and/or radio telescopes to track the Apollo missions.
    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.  @xpez9694  Amazing. Your paranoid delusional state doesn't just exist for Apollo, it permeates through your entire being. You find it impossible to believe that more than one person would tell you what a complete fool you are, such that you accuse me of being someone else. Your mind is completely lost.
    2
  193. So, in your mind, congress canceled a program because it never happened, yet, not a single member of congress ever started any sort of inquiries about bilking billions? What? How does that work, in your mind?
    2
  194. Well, the main purpose of Apollo was as a political message to the Soviets. Remember, this stuff was funded during the times of the Bay of Pigs and Cuban missile crisis, and when people were building bomb shelters in their backyards. Basically, it was a "don't mess with us, or we'll beat you" message. That's what got it funded, and, the idea was that if we express that much technological dominance, then the Soviets wouldn't start a nuclear war that would kill millions of people. We'll never know for sure whether WWIII was prevented because of Apollo, because there's no time machine to go back and change what happened. But, yes, basically, Apollo was one of many measures the USA was taking for the purpose of preventing the cold war from turning into a hot one.
    2
  195. You're asking about when the astronaut went outside the craft to get the film on the way home? That's the CMP (Ron Evans). He wasn't on the moon's surface. He never got his suit dirty. Two astronauts go down to the surface, and one stays in lunar orbit.
    2
  196. Brain
    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.  @yazzamx6380  Just a friendly update: it appears links are now allowed again in this video. It seems the channel host changed the settings.
    2
  199. Hard to tell. It's likely either some loose Mylar/Kapton that got dislodged and floated away, or perhaps some ice that formed and got dislodged.
    2
  200. You don't know what you're talking about.
    2
  201.  @Cliffmchrist  Since he refuses to reply, I'll reply for him: "Yeah, but none of your 23 items addresses why Pettit said we lost the technology. And, why are they still testing the Van Allen belts (or, as he says, Van Halen belts), if they tested during Apollo? And, since they haven't gone back in 50 years, this means it's fake. Therefore, I have successfully ignored your 23 items."
    2
  202.  @stephenpage-murray7226  Just one small clarification: yes, the Saturn V boosters for Apollo 18/19/20 were basically "finished." They weren't quite 100% finished, some minor final assembly stuff, but, yeah, close enough to call them finished. No real argument there. But, the landers were not finished. The one for Apollo 18 was closest to being finished, of course, and became a museum piece. It is missing the navigation computer, and much of the electronics. The antennae that are on it were added later, and are just cosmetic replicas. But, ok, it was close enough to being finished that I wouldn't even argue a lot about that one. But, the ones for Apollo 19 and 20 were so far from being finished that they just scrapped them entirely. So, I wouldn't use the word "completed" about those missions. However, I'm just nitpicking, and I definitely am not trying to denigrate your underlying point. Your main point was obviously valid... they were far enough along on Apollo 18/19/20 that they definitely lost a lot by canceling them, leaving unused hardware to be put into museums. Also, only one Saturn V was used for Skylab. That was the one that put Skylab up into orbit. The other Skylab launches (to launch the crews) used the Saturn 1B.
    2
  203.  @stephenpage-murray7226  Yeah, sometimes I go overboard on the details. But, the flipside is, whenever I don't, and I try to keep an answer brief, they just throw it back in my face that I wasn't accurate enough. With these people, there's no way to win.
    2
  204. Zero gravity? Huh?
    2
  205. There was a remote control camera on the rover.
    2
  206. "Temperature on the moon is over 100 degree Celsius" Not until the lunar high noon. All Apollo missions landed early in the lunar morning. So, the surface temperature for a time they weren't even there is completely irrelevant. "no foot prints would be left behind" Good gods, what ARE you talking about? Why wouldn't a footprint be left? The rocks/dust don't melt. Why do you think the boiling point of water has anything to do with the melting point of rocks? "No photos or images from outside have proven we landed there." Arizona State University's LRO camera. Chinese orbiters. Japan's JAXA/Selene. Etc. "l will give you a million dollars." Right. Sure you will.
    2
  207. A) You cannot even spell his name correctly. B) If you think the size of the universe is wrong, what are you doing on YouTube? Why aren't you writing scientific papers about how all of those galaxies seen in telescopes are not billions of lightyears away, but, in actuality, are close, and the stars in them are the size of basketballs instead of the normal size of stars/galaxies? I mean, you'll also have to explain how a basketball sized star doesn't burn out in less than a second, but, whatever. In order for those galaxies to be closer than we calculate, yes, you will have to believe those stars are the size of basketballs. So, go right ahead, explain that in the science journals. YouTube comments is where people who have no idea what they're talking about go to pretend that the world's experts are all wrong.
    2
  208. The rest of your comment I have no interest in.
    2
  209.  @schex86  No, dummy, it's not that easy. If you actually play all of the hours of moonwalk footage, not just the cherry-picked footage you find on conspiratard videos, you'll quickly learn that it cannot simply have been sped up, like you're pretending.
    1
  210.  @schex86  To WHAT video? To the hours upon hours upon hours of videos? Do it yourself, dummy. As I told you in other threads, all you're doing is blindly listening to dishonest conspiratards who are misleading you. You've obviously never actually watched the days and days worth of original videos yourself.
    1
  211. I hope you're joking. You can't REALLY be that stupid, can you?
    1
  212.  @honzalev1  You think there's a dead cameraman on the moon, and you believe **I** am the stupid one??
    1
  213.  @honzalev1  I don't know what you are trying to say, and neither do you.
    1
  214. The sky is black because there's no humid atmosphere on the moon to make it blue. You cannot see stars in the daytime on Earth, and you cannot see stars in the daytime on the moon (except by using specialized equipment to see them during the day).
    1
  215. Despite the fact that they modified the name of the lander "LEM" to "LM" (Lunar Excursion Module to just Lunar Module), almost all of them continued to call it the "LEM."
    1
  216. It's not a technology issue. The USA was not lacking any technology required to go to the moon in 1969-1972. Sorry, you don't get to just quote-mine (out of context) three words once spoken by one astronaut, and then assume you know what you're talking about. You clearly do not.
    1
  217. Schmitt. Not Smith.
    1
  218. No. I believe that's Mitchell on Apollo 14. See the big dish on the left? Only Apollo 12 and 14 had that, and Apollo 12 didn't have TV video. But, if you're talking about a few seconds later, yeah, I think that's Dave Scott from the MESA cam.
    1
  219. You have misunderstood. It weighed 6 million pounds, but, the rockets in the first stage produced 7.5 million pounds of THRUST. Does this clear it up? You want more thrust than weight, or you cannot even get off the ground. Side note: each F1 engine produced 1.5 million pounds of thrust (x5 engines).
    1
  220. A) Given that your other comment says it's zero gravity, um, yeah, I hardly think you know ANYTHING about this topic. B) Are you under the impression that the thickness of the dust layer must be 100% identical all across every square inch of the moon? C) The video clips of the rover driving actually came from Apollo 15 and 16. As far as I can recall anyway, they never ran the 16mm camera while driving the rover on Apollo 17. Different dust conditions exist just a hundred feet apart from each other... let alone hundreds of miles between one landing site and another.
    1
  221. Name the EXACT technology that was lacking at the time. Don't just say "technology" and expect it to mean something. Name PRECISELY which technology wasn't good enough. And, then, explain why none of the thousands of engineers who were working on that particular technology during Apollo never noticed that the equipment they designed and built, couldn't actually do the job that they designed and built it to do?
    1
  222. @Shill Seeker Anything in orbit is going at least that fast. Orbit had been mastered long before Apollo.
    1
  223.  @shillseeker9538  Um, dummy, you can go outside and track any of the visible satellites, you know. You can use radio to track the GPS satellites. You can see many of the satellites with your bare eyes in the correct lighting conditions. And, their trajectories are published, and you can get one of your conspiracy friends to cooperate with you to prove yourself wrong. Just look at the trajectory of a large satellite, like the ISS, when the lighting conditions are correct to see it, and then stand directly under that path. Get a conspiracy friend of yours to stand in a place about 500 miles away that is also along that same trajectory. You watch when it passes directly over your head. Then your idiotic friend can watch when it passes directly over his head. And, you can use basic "distance = rate x time" calculations to determine how fast it was going. Guess what, it comes out to 17,000 mph. Every single time. This is basic physics. Distance = rate x time. (Rate = velocity.) If you don't believe it's going 17,000 mph, then what are you waiting for?!?!!? This is remarkably easy to demonstrate. Why are you on YouTube instead of proving it?
    1
  224.  @shillseeker9538  Dummy, what's wrong with you?? Distance = rate x time. Go out there and DEMONSTRATE IT!!! Do exactly what I said. You will have mathematical proof that the ISS is being faked, if you can simply demonstrate that it cannot cover the distance of 17,000 miles in the period of an hour!!! Why are you on YouTube?!?! Mathematical proof of your position awaits you!!! You'll be famous!!! Worldwide, if you can demonstrate that the ISS is being faked, because it's not going the speed they say it's going, you can single-handedly bring NASA to its knees!!! You'll be on paid appearances on talk shows all around the world. You'll get million dollar book deals. You'll be on university lecture circuits for $70,000 per week for YEARS to come!! Your name will go down in the history books!!! Why bother with YouTube when you can demonstrate that the ISS isn't going 17,000 mph?? Don't you realize how amazingly significant that is?? You will spearhead senate investigations that will eventually result in imprisoning thousands of NASA officials and engineers for fraud!! This is amazing news!!! And, just think, I'll get to say I knew you when you were just a moron on YouTube spewing utter garbage... I'll be so proud.
    1
  225.  @shillseeker9538  Stop changing topics!!! I'm not going to sit here and respond to ever-shifting topics. You said the ISS isn't going 17,000 mph. I offered you a mechanism to prove it!! Why aren't you doing it?!?!
    1
  226.  @shillseeker9538  YOU SAID: "you’re going to keep replying to me because it’s your job to do so." == What drugs did this to you? How far down the toilet have you pissed your brain away, if you think people are paid to point out how stupid you are? Anyway, dummy, I'm still waiting. I offered you an iron clad method of proving the ISS is not going 17,000 mph. Distance = rate x time. This is fundamental mathematics. Yet, you refuse to address it. All you do is change topics. Why? Why won't you address the "distance = rate x time" formula?? Why not? This formula is BY DEFINITION true. It simply cannot be untrue. Distance = rate x time BY DEFINITION. 17,000 mph means that it's going 17,000 miles in an hour. That's the definition of "mph," right? So, with some simple 6th grade math, you can prove your point. Why won't you?
    1
  227.  @shillseeker9538  Distance = rate x time. Why do you keep avoiding this?? Distance = rate x time. As for "because it's your job to do so," good gods, what drugs are you on? What's wrong with you? How paranoid delusional do you have to be in order to believe people are paid to reply to you on YouTube?? What drugs did this to your brain? Good gods, go to rehab instead of wasting your time on ridiculous conspiracies. Good grief.
    1
  228.  @shillseeker9538  Dummy, I'm not listening to you changing topics. No, I'm not watching your stupid video. Distance = rate x time. You keep avoiding this obvious issue. Why won't you use distance = rate x time to prove your point? If you think the ISS is not going 17,000 mph, you can use the "distance = rate x time" formula to prove it!!! No, I'm not going to let you change topics. Use that formula to PROVE IT.
    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.  @lorinlazarescu2520  YOU SAID: "I will answer to you... because they never reached the moon :)" == You're an idiot. Of course they did. YOU SAID: "there are many questions which NASA does not want to answer ;)" == How do you think this works? Do you think NASA staffs a hotline of tens of thousands of Apollo experts to answer the tens of thousands of ignorant idiots who would call up to ask stupid questions? How/why EXACTLY do you expect them to answer stupid questions? Who EXACTLY is supposed to answer idiots who think the moon landings didn't happen? And, what difference would it make anyway? If they did staff tens of thousands of people to answer questions, would you start believing the answers?? No, you'd just deny the answers anyway. You're an idiot. That's how idiots work. YOU SAID (when asked to explain the laser reflectors on the moon): "these are not related to the moon" == So, you're claiming that the laser reflectors on the moon are not related to the moon?? What a dummy. And, you wonder why NASA doesn't bother answering questions from people THAT stupid?? Laser reflectors on the moon are not related to the moon??? Good gods. Lay off the drugs, you moron. Look at what they've done to you.
    1
  232. Yup. As far as I'm concerned, he was the "perfect" speaker. If you asked him a question, he always answered it in the exact amount of detail that you'd want. If someone asked him an entry-level question, he'd answer it in very basic terms. If you wanted a more detailed engineering answer, he could give you the engineer's answer in great detail. He could scale his answers up or down, based on his "read" on the person he was speaking with. And, he was razor sharp at knowing his audience. I, too, met him a number of times over the years. I've met most of the moonwalkers a bunch of times. You'll get the most raw information from Buzz Aldrin. Ask him a question, you'll get a 1/2 hour answer (which is great). But, Cernan (before he died) and Schmitt would also give you tons of information if you ask for it. And, Cernan was probably the best at putting everything in human terms.
    1
  233. Those craft that fly to the edge of the solar system weighed less than 2,000 pounds. This is the "payload" of the rocket. Apollo's command module, service module, and lander, weighed about 100,000 pounds. The payload is literally 50x that of the rockets you're trying to compare with.
    1
  234. So, what changed? Was it drugs? Stroke? Severe head impact?
    1
  235.  @wildcat8882  Is your cell phone connected to the Parkes Radio Telescope? Once again, what happened? Was it drugs? Stroke? Severe head impact?
    1
  236. You can go buy a 2 or 3 foot dish right now, and a 100 watt radio, and bounce radio signals off of the moon, and use this "moon bounce" to talk to someone half way around the world. It is done by backyard amateurs every single day. This has been done since many years before Apollo ever went to the moon. If any backyard amateur can send a radio signal to the moon and back, why are you so surprised that they could send a radio signal to the moon by using something like the Parkes Radio Telescope? Why do you keep changing topics? What rock changed shapes? What are you talking about? The landings were filmed from inside the window of the lander. No camera man was there. Why would you say that? This is just plain ridiculous.
    1
  237.  @wildcat8882  So, you went back and edited your comment. What rocket changed shapes? What are you talking about?
    1
  238.  @wildcat8882  How is this an answer to any question/challenge I put forth? What ARE you talking about?
    1
  239. Dutch, if you didn't want answers, why did you ask questions? I swear, not a single one of you nuts is capable of being coherent for even a minute.
    1
  240. There are around 5700 photos taken from the surface of the moon on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website. You can also find hundreds upon hundreds of images of the Apollo landing sites taken by LRO's cameras orbiting the moon for the last 10 years by keying in "LRO photos of Apollo landing sites" into Google.
    1
  241.  @schex86  Yes, dummy, they did. You just don't know what you're talking about.
    1
  242.  @schex86  Sure, dummy. Here are 125 of them. There are more also. But, instead of just blindly assuming that other conspiratards have told you correct information (they never do), you'll have to look FOR YOURSELF next time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s17Se8-CbgE
    1
  243. YOU SAID: "Why we never went again to the moon again?" == Congress pulled the funding. After the race with the Soviets to the moon was won, they didn't want to keep pouring that kind of money into it. YOU SAID: "With today technology..." == Technology has nothing to do with why they stopped going. YOU SAID: "i call this '69 bullshit..." == So, before anybody could answer your questions, you already came to your conclusion. Why do you ask questions when you have no intention of waiting for the answers? YOU SAID: "being jealous on russian and then you "wanted to beat Russians" how pathetic is that motive to try to get to moon... sad" == Think whatever you wish, but, yes, that was the motivation. YOU SAID: "yeah. That's the argument. Am just asking logical question." == No, you're PRETENDING to ask questions. You have no intention of listening to answers.
    1
  244.  @geoffbirchall7552  My fully boosted? What does that mean? Or, was that your barely literate attempt at writing "you're"?
    1
  245.  @geoffbirchall7552  My smart? So, you still can't learn English?
    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. You truly are as dumb as people can get. Good gods.
    1
  248.  @ZigSputnik  Well, not big ones. But, yes, they did set off very small "bombs" (not really "bombs," but explosives, yes), for seismic experiments.
    1
  249.  @troth6251  Um, ok. Isn't that what I just said?
    1
  250.  @troth6251  YOU SAID: "You did, NASA crashed a rocket into the Moon followed by a satellite to detect if there was water on the Moon, they found there was . This happened about ten years ago." == How is this response relevant? Are you high on drugs? First, you "correct" me by repeating exactly what I said. Now, you're changing topics entirely.
    1
  251.  @troth6251  You do know that he (the original poster of this thread) is talking about 28:14 in this video, right?
    1
  252. Pffttt. Um, maybe because those agencies are funded with public money?? Like, who EXACTLY do you think at the UN would say, "no, we're not taking that money and spending it on what the public wants us to spend it on, we're going to give our money to NASA instead"??
    1
  253. The main factor is the altitude. A picture is worth 1000 words. Go watch a vsauce video on YouTube called "How Much of the Earth Can You See at Once?"
    1
  254. YOU SAID: "All I see here are name callers." == Idiots are idiots... whattayagonnado? YOU SAID: "Non one has bothered to address the evidence." == The decade of evidence that would bury a mountain? How does anybody address it in a YouTube comment field? YOU SAID: "I'm still not convinced either way." == I do not believe you. But, we'll see. YOU SAID: "Does anyone see the glint from the cables as the astronauts as they jump ?" == What? The lens flare from the antenna? (That's the most popular one that Percy and his idiotic crowd talk about.) Yeah, see, lens flare has been understood for a century. And, unless your name is J.J. Abrams, you try to AVOID lens flare. Problem is, they didn't exactly have the luxury of professional lighting experts on the moon to prevent lens flare.
    1
  255. Itchy Boy, are you REALLY that stupid?
    1
  256. And, this mess was your edited version? I'd hate to see how bad your first version was.
    1
  257. Likely a piece of ice that came loose. Hard to tell, though.
    1
  258. The video is an hour long. Would you care to specify the timestamp?
    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.  @ornanongsavage8688  I already responded to you about that video (in a different thread). Why are you linking it again? Did you even bother reading the reply? Did you read my replies in this thread? Why can't you address any of your own points? Why can't you address any questions I asked? What's wrong with you? Seriously, this isn't internet banter, what IS wrong with you? Was it drugs that did this to you? Something else?
    1
  263.  @ornanongsavage8688  Why do you ask questions, then refuse to read the answers?
    1
  264.  @vladkeel  In the USA, the word "pound" can mean mass, or it can mean weight (force). Sorry that the English language uses words interchangeably too often. But, yes, in this context, they are talking about pounds of force on Earth = 450. It's 1/6th of that on the moon.
    1
  265. Let me simplify this for you, since you seem very determined to deny reality. Generally speaking, if you want to make stars show up on film, the camera's shutter must be open for about 20-30 seconds, and that's how long the film must be exposed in order for stars to appear. A normal photo requires a shutter speed that is a tiny fraction of a second (usually between 1/60th of a second, and 1/250th of a second). If this doesn't explain it for you, nothing ever will.
    1
  266. Then there's simply no hope for you. If you cannot understand a concept like film exposure speeds, and you believe that the entirety of the planet's photography experts are trying to trick you, then what can anybody ever say to you?
    1
  267. "why in every picture they took it seems as though they are just at the edge of the moon?" AS17-146-22345 - Does this look like any "edge of the moon"? Stop pretending you've ever even looked at the photo archives. Some video told you that all of the photos were like that, and you just blindly believed every word without checking for yourself. There are about 5700 photos taken from the lunar surface, and another about 1300 taken from the windows of the landers onto the lunar surface. Tell me how many you've viewed?
    1
  268. And, it refuses to post my reply. So, I'll make this shorter. AS17-146-22345. Does that look like an "edge of the moon" to you? How many of the 7000 photos have you even viewed?
    1
  269. What video did you watch that made that silly statement? Why would you actually believe that all documents were lost? It's ridiculous. You can go right now to the Apollo Lunar Surface site and download terabytes of documents about how the craft worked, down to every wire and switch.
    1
  270.  @timparziale8762  What in the world are you talking about? Each dish can track Apollo for about 12 hours, and then it falls out of line of sight. What signal "bouncing" are you even referring to? Good grief.
    1
  271. None of the Apollo rock/dust samples had ever been exposed to oxygen, nor moisture. Sorry, you're not going to find that in any meteorites in Antarctica. The Apollo program has labeled 11,000 samples that they brought back from the moon, most of which are the size of a grain of sand. They literally labeled and cataloged every single piece of rock/dust, whether large or small (except the ones that they haven't even opened yet, saving them for future generations with better technologies). Sorry, but little dust sized rocks aren't surviving entry into Earth's atmosphere to be found in Antarctica. The Apollo samples have been given to thousands of worldwide geologists and geology students over the past 50 years, and not a single one of them thinks any came from Antarctica. You claim that "all geologists" agree with you? That's absolutely wrong, and a complete lie. There literally hasn't been a single paper written by any of those geologists or students that has accused the rocks of being meteorites from Antarctica, published in any recognized peer review geology journal anywhere in the world. But, if you think you understand the topic better than the entire planet's geologists for the past 50 years, why aren't YOU publishing your findings in some of those journals? What are you waiting for?
    1
  272.  @timparziale8762  Hilarious!! What makes you believe this ridiculous story about Von Braun getting moon rocks from Antarctica? How does that make any sense to you? What in the world would Von Braun even know about geology? He was a rocket engineer. You seem to just blindly believe any "news" (not news) story that aligns with your delusions. Meanwhile, none of the thousands upon thousands of geologists and geology students who have studied the moon rocks have agreed with you. Can you name ONE paper written in any single one of the entire world's recognized peer reviewed geology journals that even remotely says that those rocks/dust could have come from meteorites? Have you even looked at the core tubes? You think they can get those from burned up meteorites? How about the anorthosites? Do you think you can make one of those by chopping into a meteorite? And, again, why won't you answer, if you think anything you're saying is correct, why aren't you publishing your findings in one of the countless journals around the world? Why would you think a YouTube comment would be the correct place to rewrite everything known about lunar geology?
    1
  273. Are you even reading anything I've written past the first sentence? Why do you repeatedly refuse to answer anything? Good grief. More gibberish. Nothing you're saying makes any sense at all, yet, you're apparently very proud of yourself. Completely delusional.
    1
  274.  @timparziale8762  Once again, I said any signal can be relayed, but, you cannot do so in such a way that a radio telescope or radar dish would be "bluffed." You claimed that it could be done from a ground station. I asked you how they'd replicate the Doppler effect of a craft going thousands of miles per hour from a ground station. You refuse to answer. You've refused to answer every question/challenge. And, YOU were the one who thought that the satellites in space were equipped with radio telescopes, and that's what your dish on the ground is receiving. Remember that comment? Satellites couldn't even work correctly if they used a radio telescope. Good grief. You don't know anything about radar or radio telescopes.
    1
  275. How is that an answer to a single thing? What in the world are you talking about? Do you actually believe you understand these topics whatsoever?
    1
  276. Thanks for proving my point.
    1
  277. "You said you cannot retransmits radio signals." - If you're not going to read what I actually said (repeatedly), why are you even asking me questions? You know darned well that you're not reading my replies past 1 sentence, if at all. How would you even know what I said?
    1
  278. This is just plain ridiculous, and you know it. YOU are the one who thinks radio telescopes are mounted to satellites, and that they transmit signals to a dish on someone's house (completely backward, and totally wrong). YOU are the one who said that radio signals cannot reach to and from the moon because of the magnetic field of Earth, despite that backyard amateurs have been doing it every single day for 70+ years, and magnetic fields have no effect on radio signals. Just stop pretending, you child.
    1
  279. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you're not even reading replies.
    1
  280. If you know exactly what you're talking about (sigh), why do you believe that radio cannot reach the moon and back, even though I have repeatedly explained that any backyard amateur can do a radio moon bounce, and this has been done for 70 years?
    1
  281. Tim, why are you on YouTube? You apparently believe that your knowledge of geology exceeds thousands of the entire planet's geologists who have studied the Apollo moon rocks, none of whom have ever come to the conclusion that they are merely meteorites that came from Antarctica. You apparently believe your knowledge of radio exceeds the entire planet's communications experts who do not believe that the magnetosphere affects radio at all. And, you think that the entire planet's backyard amateurs who have done "moon bounces" for the past 70 years have someone been wasting their time when they point their dishes and Yagi at the moon, when they bounce radio off of it, because, you believe that the signal is really bouncing off of the magnetosphere, and therefore nobody has ever needed to aim their dishes at the moon at all. I'm sure you can reproduce this yourself, right? But, you never explained... why do radio bounces off of the magnetosphere or ionosphere take 2.5 seconds? And, how do they get half way around the world? Let me guess, you ran off to a video that "explained" (sigh) that the ionosphere in certain conditions can reflect radio, right? And, from that, you think this explains the last 70 years of moon bounces? When are you going to give up here, Tim? When are you just going to admit that you have no clue what you're talking about?
    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. Huh? Is your "scroll up" broken? What don't you understand here?
    1
  284. And, when numerous countries around the world, including the Soviets, tracked all of the Apollo missions to the moon and back with radar and radio telescopes, and listened in on the radio audio (with their dishes pointed at the moon), how do you explain that? Why would all of those countries, including enemy countries, go along with this "grab for power"?
    1
  285. Sorry Eddy, you have fallen for silly videos that make ridiculous claims, and you haven't fact checked any of them. You believe what you believe because of your own ignorance and arrogance.
    1
  286. YOU SAID: "Does anyone honestly still believe we went to the moon using the technology available in the late 60s!?" == Name the EXACT technology you think wasn't good enough. Name it. Don't just say "technology" like it's a blanket word that's supposed to mean something. Name the exact technology that was lacking, then explain why none of the thousands of engineers working on that technology ever noticed that the stuff the designed and built, couldn't do the jobs they designed and built it to do? YOU SAID: "Come on! It is 383,000 miles away" == The moon has never been 383,000 miles away. Never. You have zero understanding of this topic. YOU SAID: "and requires travel through a vacuum!" == So? What's your point? YOU SAID: "Totally ridiculous." == No, dummy. YOU are ridiculous.
    1
  287. You cannot capture stars on film/video without very long exposure times. It's just how cameras work. It's the same here on Earth.
    1
  288.  @PAULLONDEN  Correct. There is no such thing as an educated Apollo doubter. Every argument against Apollo comes from people who know absolutely nothing about the topics they're arguing about.
    1
  289.  @shillseeker9538  Are you intentionally trying to prove me correct? What's wrong with you? What an idiot.
    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. "home recording of launch 14 shows Apollo is way to slow to have made . it to the moon ," What ARE you talking about? There is no "home recording" that could even see how fast it was going. It lifted off of pad 39A, then headed east over the ocean. By the time it got up to speed, it was well outside the range of any home camera. Even the professional cameras couldn't see that far, because the craft went over the horizon. "other things like radiation" Write it up for a science journal. What are you waiting for. Demonstrate mathematically that the radiation would have been a problem. "lander never tested" Huh? Apollo 5, Apollo 6, Apollo 9, and Apollo 10, all flew those landers in space to test them, before Apollo 11 went to the moon. Why don't you know this? Why would you say "fake" about a program you know absolutely nothing about? "shadows from different sides while being so called on the moon" Sorry that you don't understand photographic perspective, but, that's how all shadows work, on the moon, on Earth, or anywhere else.
    1
  292. "way much slower than the tv pictures , isn't that strange ?" More problems understanding photographic perspective, eh? "and what about the rediation, mesurements in 1959/60 , the geiger counter returned to earth broken because to much radiation." Huh? A Geiger counter isn't really a measurement tool. It clicks. That's it. They sent up two missions with Geiger counters, in an air-filled chamber, which played clicks, and a tape recorder recorded the clicks. That's not a measurement. And, who told you that they broke? Good grief. Yes, they found there was a lot more radiation than they expected, but, subsequent launches with real instruments revealed the exact measurements. There were between tens of MEV and hundreds of MEV at an altitude of about 1000 miles. So what? Why do you think that matters for Apollo? "you can see on pictures the shaddows are not parallel to each other" Yes, shadows converge if looked at from eye level. That's what they do. "where can people find blueprints of the whole rocket ?" What in the world are you talking about?!!?!?!?!? There has never been a blueprint of the whole rocket. How big do you think that blueprint would be? And, why would they make one? Good grief. Do you even know what a blueprint is for? "they "lost" 5 tons off data" No, you are just regurgitating silly claims from conspiracy videos that intentionally take things out of context.
    1
  293. "You are a paid troll" Wow. You actually believe people get paid to respond to your silly comments on YouTube? That's how far gone you are?
    1
  294. That's your reply? You're going to ignore everything I wrote, and then state the same questions I already answered? Good gods. Look, just go back to high school. Get a diploma. Make something of yourself. Learn to read and write. Stop worrying about silly conspiracies you clearly know nothing about.
    1
  295. So, that's it then? You are throwing in the towel, by changing topics? You refuse to address a single thing I wrote, or a single question I asked. And, instead, you're just going to change topics? What year did you drop out of high school? I'm guessing that you basically started failing badly by 7th or 8th grade, and dropped out entirely by 10th grade. How close to accurate am I?
    1
  296. Nope, not going to deal with your new topics until/unless you address my answers and questions. I will not play your Gish Gallop Game.
    1
  297. We're done here, right? You obviously refuse to absorb a single comment that I've made, or answer a single question I asked. So, why do you keep asking stuff, when you've made it perfectly clear that you intend to ignore the answers?
    1
  298. Is your "scroll up" broken? Why should I have to repeat any questions/comments? Stop trying to make excuses for your lack of education. Try to kick your addictions. Go back to school. Learn to read and write. I mean, we both know there's no hope of you ever understanding any science or math. But, at least you can get educated to the point of at least knowing what the scientific method is, and how it works, even if you will never understand the sciences themselves. I mean, seriously, don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time, and knowing absolutely nothing about anything? Normal people would seek to do something about that. Not you, though. You're an addict, and a high school dropout. Good grief.
    1
  299. So, once again, you refuse to address anything I wrote, or answer any questions.
    1
  300. Is your "scroll up" broken? Why should I have to repeat any questions/comments? Stop trying to make excuses for your lack of education. Try to kick your addictions. Go back to school. Learn to read and write. I mean, we both know there's no hope of you ever understanding any science or math. But, at least you can get educated to the point of at least knowing what the scientific method is, and how it works, even if you will never understand the sciences themselves. I mean, seriously, don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time, and knowing absolutely nothing about anything? Normal people would seek to do something about that. Not you, though. You're an addict, and a high school dropout. Good grief.
    1
  301. What don't you understand here? Why are you asking me new questions, when you refuse to address any of the original topics? I told you about a dozen times that I will not take new questions from you, while you continue to duck/dodge/avoid all of the other questions I asked you about your own original statements. Yet, here you are, new questions again?
    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. So, like usual, you ignore my return questions/challenges, and you just change the topic. I kept telling you that I will not answer new questions when you refuse to address old ones. I made one exception, and answered about the astronauts standing on a steep slope. You ignored that answer, and didn't do a single thing I said which would confirm that you were wrong. And, now you're back to your original habits of asking more questions. No. You scroll up, and go back and answer all of the questions you have refused to answer. I made an exception once. I'm not doing it again. I will not answer new questions while you continue to avoid the old ones.
    1
  305. And, that's an answer to any of my questions, how?
    1
  306. Are you even reading a single thing I wrote at this point? Or, is your mind so clouded by substance abuse that you are incapable of even comprehending anything?
    1
  307. Apace better yea. 60s happened bass. Technology to what?
    1
  308.  @kathy888  YOU SAID: "NASA had the schematics of the rover online and they matched perfectly to a Jeep (forget which one)" == Ridiculous dribble. That's what your favorite conspiracy videos claim. But, you obviously have never looked at the rover schematics for yourself. You simply regurgitate what conspiracy videos tell you. YOU SAID: "It was on the youtube site Lift the Veil." == Sorry, conspiracy sites aren't rover schematics. It's even funnier because GM and Boeing designed and built the rovers. Yet, you think they'd use a Jeep? Tell me, dummy, which jeeps use wire mesh wheels, four electric motors (one on each wheel), and fold up to fit into a tiny compartment on the lunar module? Funny you'd "forget which one" (your words) - yeah, because what you're claiming is insanity. YOU SAID: "Six million for each Rover." == $38 million each. YOU SAID: "We were screwed!" == You sure were. But, not by NASA. You were screwed by the lousy education you've received, and you were screwed by your parents when they lied and said you were a smart child.
    1
  309.  @kathy888  So, your reply was to repeat your earlier stupidity??
    1
  310.  @kathy888  Fine, in the meantime, how about explaining which Jeep fits those criteria: has wire mesh wheels, and 4 electric motors, and a flat folding chassis? Why can't you do so? A video told you this was a Jeep, so it's a Jeep? Hey, don't pray for your god to wake me up... pray for your god to grant you a new brain. Yours is defective.
    1
  311.  @kathy888  YOU SAID: "Stupidity if answering a fool. Opps, just broke my own rule! == But, dummy, you're NOT even answering. You're refusing to answer. You always have, and you always will. Your stupid conspiracy videos are wrong, therefore you're wrong (because those videos are your only source of "education"). And, when challenged, you crumble, EVERY SINGLE TIME. You've never been able to answer ANY questions or challenges.
    1
  312. Wow, how convincing!
    1
  313.  J Calhoun  Apollo placed three reflectors on the moon. The Soviets placed two (unmanned landers). But, one of the Soviet ones was lost for decades, because it was on a rover that drove around, and wasn't returning a good bounce-back. They suspected it either turned over, or was covered with too much dust. But, they re-acquired it a few years ago with better lasers, and has the location pinpointed. The bounce-back isn't great, but good enough.
    1
  314. Well, yes and no. I mean, I would never want to take away from the contributions made by the Germans. But, the Soviets got their fair share of German engineers also. And, the truth is that the USA would have gone to the moon with or without the Germans helping them. I fully realize that there's plenty of "we couldn't do it without you" comments out there. But, boiling away the nice comments, the raw truth is that the USA's engineers were not too shabby, and would have done the job.
    1
  315. I feel badly for people who fail to understand simple concepts like remote control.
    1
  316. So, let me get this straight... you believe the moon is below cloud level?? You don't think that is just an optical effect of a bright moon through thin clouds?? No? You think the moon is below cloud level?? And, none of the millions of high altitude flights over the last century have ever accidentally stumbled across it?? No?? Somehow, every flight in human history has managed to avoid hitting the moon, and every pilot has simply not noticed that he/she was flying above the moon... rather than the simple conclusion that the video you're linking was overexposed??? Good gods, what a moron.
    1
  317.  @robertpunu7624  What a total moron. I'm certainly not answering your parade of idiocy when you fail completely to answer my challenge about airplanes and the moon. If you believe the moon is below cloud level, then explain why no flight in history has ever hit the moon, or no pilot/passenger has ever seen the moon below. What IS wrong with you? What drugs did this to you?
    1
  318.  @robertpunu7624  YOU SAID: "you just come off as an insulting jerk." == Oh, the irony. You're accusing millions of people of committing fraud upon the entire world population for centuries, oh, but everyone ELSE is an insulting jerk?? Hey, dumbass, has it occurred to you that maybe YouTube isn't actually an education?? Is there any scam you do NOT fall for?? Seriously, you're as dumb as they come, and it's quite clear that you've never set foot into a single university classroom on any relevant topic. I'm with Maynard also in doubting you even graduated high school. The moon isn't solid??? What a goddamned idiot.
    1
  319. Huh? It would have been fake if you could see stars.
    1
  320. Why couldn't a man step on the moon? What makes you say such a silly thing?
    1
  321.  @russellmckernan  So, your position is that the entire world's experts are wrong, and you're right, and you think the SANE people are the ones with this phenomenal mental condition, and you're not? Good gods, the irony.
    1
  322.  @leecattell6548  No, Lee. The pity is that you're a grown adult who cannot kick your addiction/habit. As you've proven time and time again, you have zero education to speak of, you believe utter claptrap, and you feel badly about this. But, rather than bettering yourself, rather than finishing your high school education, rather than getting gainful employment and an actual career, you have chosen to try to drag others down to your level, by accusing the most accomplished people in human history of failing just as badly as you have.
    1
  323.  @pasisovi  "Enough is enough"? Yeah, then stop accusing thousands of people of being criminals, based on your entire lack of education and warped delusions.
    1
  324. Alice, they always landed early in the lunar morning, long before the temperatures got that high. Most of the missions landed when the surface temperatures were about 40 degrees (F). The surface temperatures don't get up to 250-260 degrees (F) until late into the lunar afternoon.
    1
  325. Oh, and about the size of the Earth in the photos, same thing, you simply don't even understand what you're looking at. But, you can do that math also. Look up the lens used for each photo you have in question, the focal length to the 70mm film, look at the original photo (not the cropped version in this video), and do the math. Why are you on YouTube??? You can mathematically prove Apollo was fake by simply doing the math about these photos!!! Publish your results in science journals!!! Such a discovery would result in 7-8 figure book deals, prime speaking engagements at $70K per week on the lecture circuits, being a paid witness in congressional hearings that would result in shutting NASA down permanently, being a paid witness in international fraud trials from allied countries that spent billions to support Apollo. You'll be on all of the talk shows (paid). You'll never work another day in your life. I fail to understand why you amazing geniuses think that YouTube comments is the correct forum to publish your amazing findings, when you'd easily make about $35 million over the next 5 years by publishing your math in actual science journals.
    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. And, again, for some reason, it blocked one of my messages telling you where to get this information. So, I'll just ask, did you go look at the original uncropped photo, to discover that the entire bottom half is missing from this video (thus giving you the wrong impression about the angle)? Did you go watch the TV video of Cernan taking this exact photo (and see he's bent way over, tilting the camera at an upward angle toward Schmitt and the flag, to get the Earth in frame)?
    1
  328. I will try one more time to tell you where to see this exact photo being taken, and if it blocks me again, I'm just going to give up. "Apollo 17 - 114 40 - 122 40" Three hours, forty six minutes, 9 seconds. That exact photo was taken.
    1
  329. AS17-134-20384 = that uncropped photo. AS17-134-20455 = the correct angle to Earth (the dish is aimed at Earth).
    1
  330.  @stevegagnon1539  Steve, let me honestly thank you for saying this. (Not joking.) 99.9% of the conspiracy nuts on YouTube will NEVER admit being wrong, even about a single aspect, no matter how much evidence you throw at them. Frankly, I shouldn't be shocked when finding someone on YouTube who admits being wrong, but, I am shocked anyway. So, thanks for the pleasant shock that you're admitting being wrong. Beyond that, remember, we have to also accommodate for the moon's wobble of 10 degrees (which is up to 5 degrees off-center). Again, I didn't try to hunt down where the moon was in the wobble cycle during Apollo 17. But, yes, this can mean that you might have to add up to 5 degrees more to your calculations, depending on the wobble cycle. Did you view the TV video I pointed out, showing Cernan taking the exact photo you're talking about? It clearly shows Cernan bending over really low, angling the camera upward. And, did you view the uncropped photo?
    1
  331. "Moon Phase and Libration" - watch a couple videos showing the time-lapse of this wobble. You will understand why the angles change significantly enough to include them in the calculations, and why the 0/0 longitude/latitude moon coordinate doesn't always look 90 degrees upward toward Earth.
    1
  332. It has blocked my reply (yet again, for the 49587398573498th time). So, again, I need to trim my response, and avoid stating anything about where/how to find things. You need to look at three hours, forty six minutes, nine seconds, into the video. That's the very second this photo was snapped. You will see Cernan bending way down, pointing the camera on an upward angle, to get Schmitt, the flag, and the Earth, all in frame. I hope this puts an end to any issues you have with that photo. A photo of Apollo 17 with the Earth and a boulder... catalog number or timestamp?
    1
  333.  @stevegagnon1539  It must be blocking your postings as much as it blocks mine. I don't see a link.
    1
  334. Note: one of the issues is that sometimes you can see your own postings, but other people cannot see them. I have made it a habit to keep one browser window open that's signed in, and another window open that's not signed in. That way, I can check the window that's signed in to see if the rest of the world can see the same messages that my signed-in window can see. My signed-in window thinks this message string is like 100 messages long (containing all of the messages that I attempted to post, but nobody else can see). But, the window that's not signed in can only see 22 messages. Anyway, I have been going through the photo archives, and I think I might know the one you're talking about. I'll post a catalog number shortly.
    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.  @stevegagnon1539  Hence why, on the moon, most photos don't include the Earth... only photos that are taken from an upward slanted angle.
    1
  337.  @stevegagnon1539  I gave you the catalog numbers. Did you not see that posting?
    1
  338. Here if you want to understand why the Earth looks so low in the sky in the boulder photo you're talking about, this picture will explain it. a17pan22382-90ic This photo (pan) was taken from across the valley from that boulder/Earth photo you're undoubtedly worried about. See that huge wide flat massif (mountain) that is dead center in the pan? OK, well, that's where they went on EVA3, over to that huge wide flat massif you see in the distance of this pan photo I'm providing. Huge. Wide. Flat-faced mountain. And, your boulder picture was taken from there, looking up the flat/wide mountain. That's why it looks like a flat horizon line. But, it's not. It's a very steep angle. That's undoubtedly the photo you're worried about, because you think the Earth is low in the sky. But, it's not low in the sky in reality. It's just that the photo is being taken from that wide wide wide huge massif, that is quite "flat" looking on that side. Get it?
    1
  339. If you don't know how to find catalog numbers: Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Enter. Apollo 17. Image Library.
    1
  340. And, sorry, but the image ID catalog number I gave you will apparently not be found on the Journal in the format I specified. Unfortunately, I just referred to my own library catalog on my personal NAS, and not the Journal. But, just for the sake of being thorough, I just checked the Journal, and they don't identify the photo the same way. Ugh. So, you won't find it under the name I gave. You'll find it under: Quote: "Ian Cossor has assembled a high-resolution, partial pan ( 1.9 Mb ) showing Bear Mountain, the South Massif and (West) Family Mountain. The frames are 22382 to 22390." If you look at that photo, you will see the wide/flat massif (in the distance) that they were looking upward in the boulder photo you're worried about. The wide flat face of that massif is the reason it appears to be "flat" toward a horizon line. But, in reality, they were at that massif/mountain, looking upward toward Earth, when they took the boulder/Earth photo. And, the massif is so wide and flat, it looks like a regular flat ground... but it's not. It's super steep.
    1
  341. It's all about the bass the bass the bass, no trouble.
    1
  342. @Andre YOU SAID: "You made this just up." == Sadly, no, he didn't make it up. In some of the conspiracy videos, some of the "evidence" they present is the testimony of an old woman in Australia who claimed she saw a Coke can/bottle on the surface of the moon on the TV broadcast. No, she didn't have any special television connection to out-of-band broadcasting. No, she didn't have access to any behind-the-scenes stuff. Her actual claim was that she was watching the very same TV broadcast as millions of others were watching, and she saw a Coke can/bottle. And, conspiracy believers will attach themselves to any viewpoint that supports their delusions, no matter how ridiculous, and this is merely one of those examples. One old woman out of millions of viewers (watching the same exact thing) said she saw a Coke can/bottle, therefore Apollo was fake. Tangible evidence? No, of course not. Because an old woman in Australia thought she saw a Coke can/bottle, it's a conspiracy.
    1
  343.  @devilsoffspring5519  Yes, you and I understand the same thing. It doesn't change the fact that astronaut Don Pettit said the technology was "lost" and "destroyed" in the exact context I outlined. And, it doesn't change the fact that the conspiratards now use Don Pettit's words against NASA. They intentionally infer the wrong definitions of the words they are hearing, just to fuel their delusions.
    1
  344. Pareidolia.
    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.  @AshutoshSrivastavaTimetraveler  First of all, I don't know who subscribes to my channel, nor why. I have never once posted a video. I would venture the guess that when some people see my posted comments, they subscribe whether there are videos or not. But, I cannot speak for the 47 people that I know nothing about. Secondly, how far out of the dock has your ship sailed (without you on it) if you would think anybody would pay me to answer questions on YouTube? That's just silly, and riddled with ridiculous paranoia. But, hey, if you know of someone who wants to pay me, I'm all ears.
    1
  347. Esthersar, let me guess... you watched all of Bart Sibrel's movies, and not once did he show you the rover fitting into the lander, right? As I said to you before, you're not actually studying Apollo. You're just watching anti-Apollo videos, and believing every single word, no questions asked, never once fact-checking any of them. And, now you come here, first declaring the rover wouldn't fit, and then asking questions second. Ironically, you are correct. The rover didn't fit. But, they still got it to the moon, with the rover hanging off the side of the descent stage, some of it sticking out, because, yeah, it didn't fit all the way. There are a million photos and videos. But, sorry, you're not going to find them in any of Sibrel's videos. ap15-KSC-71PC-415 is a fine example. See those gold colored wheel fenders sticking out?
    1
  348.  @lorichet  Sorry, you don't get to pretend you know ANYTHING. I mean, how far gone are you when you think that the rover didn't fit? I mean, yeah, it didn't fit, as I illustrated. It couldn't tuck all the way in (exactly as I said). How would that even happen? Don't you think any of the the thousands of engineers and technicians might notice if they never made a mechanism to bring the rover to the moon? And, given the amount of gibberish you've quoted from Bart Sibrel (in other threads of yours), yeah, it's 100% clear that you're just going to swallow anything you see, that aligns with your predetermined conclusions. His nonsense has been debunked a million times over, and, as I pointed out in the other thread, debunks ITSELF. Yet, you buy it, hook line and sinker. So, don't sit here and pretend you know anything. The rover almost fit into the lander, and the bits that didn't fit, simply hung off the side. If you can't figure this out after 50 years, your credibility is zero.
    1
  349.  @lorichet  Repeat the same incorrect garbage all you want. Rocketdyne themselves said Keysing wasn't an engineer. Who said he was? Himself?
    1
  350. A service engineer isn't an engineer. That's a glorified repairman. That's like when the guy who fixes the toilets in a company is called a "building engineer." And, Kaysing (thanks for the spelling correction) left Rocketdyne long before a single Apollo rocket even lifted off the ground. Once again, you don't know anything. You've come here to reply that he was a repairman? And, you think you know stuff because an ex-repairman who left the company before Apollo even got going told you it was fake? Bravo. You're a real genius. None of this changes the fact that your opening comment in this thread said the rover wouldn't fit, remember? And, you said you never saw anything showing you that it fit. And, since those comments demonstrated how little you know, you've now continued to try to deflect and dodge and change topics.
    1
  351.  @lorichet  It's not my fault that you don't know what a service engineer is. Kaysing was a writer, not an engineer. And, why does it matter to you? As has been pointed out repeatedly, Kaysing left long before the first Apollo rocket ever lifted off the ground. And, sorry, but this is just plain silly. All you're doing is grasping at straws, and trying to avoid your own original topic of the lunar rover.
    1
  352.  @lorichet  You're wrong. That's all there is to it. You can keep pretending you're not, but, that doesn't change anything. And, as usual, you refuse to stick to your own original topic. You will do ANYTHING to avoid it.
    1
  353.  @lorichet  We are done here. I am not playing this game with you. I answered you already in two different threads, including this one. You clearly don't want answers to your own questions.
    1
  354.  @davidkeenan5642  Laterally by a few miles? Um, no. A few hundred feet. But a few miles, the background would change significantly (and did).
    1
  355.  @davidkeenan5642  Yup. And, with the moon that is 1/50th the size of Earth, how far away do you think mountains even could be, before disappearing off of the horizon?
    1
  356.  @davidkeenan5642  Math isn't your strong point, eh?
    1
  357.  @davidkeenan5642  Here, I did a little bit of quick trig for you: Let's say the mountain is about 300 miles away (you said hundreds of miles, so, I figured I'd just go with 300). This would mean that, in order to see the peak of that mountain on the moon, it would need to be about 58 miles tall. If we take Apollo 17's South Massif mountain as an example, it is 1.4 miles tall. Mount Everest is about 5.5 miles tall. So, in order for you to be correct, you'd need a mountain 10x the height of Everest, or about 40x taller than Apollo 17's South Massif. This was just quick math, and I did a bit of rounding here and there, but, it's pretty accurate for these purposes. I mean, while it's true that the diameter is approximately 1/4th of Earth's, lots of people just don't realize what that means in terms of pure size. 50 moons can fit inside of Earth's volume. And, the moon's horizon drops really fast.
    1
  358.  @lorichet  That was an editing error from a 3rd party documentary, not reflected in the original footage. Mistakes happen in documentaries all the time. So what? I saw a documentary about WWII, in which they showed some footage of a battleship firing its guns in a certain battle, but, that battleship wasn't even constructed yet at the time of that battle. The editors of the documentary had placed some footage in the wrong part of the video. Does this mean WWII is fake? Watch the original footage, not documentaries that sometimes contain errors.
    1
  359.  @lorichet  What in the world are you talking about? What footage do you think was lost? Let me guess, you're talking about the 2006 paper in which NASA said that they lost two backup tapes from one mission. And, since that time, you people keep escalating it to the point that you think it was the primary copies, and then escalating to the point that you think everything was lost from all missions. Right? Sorry, but all you're doing (for the millionth time) is regurgitating nonsense you got from conspiracy videos, which are always wrong.
    1
  360.  @lorichet  " I couldn't finish reading your post after that line." Yeah, typical paranoid delusional behavior. You refuse all input that puts cracks in your predetermined conclusions.
    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.  @lorichet  Nope, not playing this game of yours. You cherry picked one or two sentences, and ignored the rest, as usual. If you don't have the courage to deal with being wrong, sorry, I'm not going to sit here and entertain you.
    1
  363.  @lorichet  Pffttt. Right. Sure. You've heard it all before? Then, why did you deny that Kaysing said that the Saturn's F1 engines weren't actually F1 engines, and had smaller engines tucked inside them? It's on page 84 of his own book, yet, you denied he ever said it. How does this mean that you've heard it before? Why won't you answer any questions asked of you? Too afraid to deal with them, huh? Why can't you admit being wrong about the rover "fitting" into the lander? I provided the exact photos you didn't think existed. I explained why the geometry is what it is. I explained that the rover had to stick out of the side of the lander because it didn't fit all the way in (yet, they still managed to carry it). Yet, even with the exact photographic evidence you asked for, you refuse to admit being wrong. How far gone are you? Have you been diagnosed yet? Is it dementia starting to creep in? Or, is there a chemical imbalance issue?
    1
  364.  @lorichet  You refuse to answer anything I've ever asked. You refuse to admit being wrong about anything whatsoever, even when give point-blank irrefutable evidence that you're wrong. What choices do you give me?
    1
  365.  @lorichet  Hilarious!!! Um, silly person suffering from some sort of imbalance or early onset of geriatric degeneration, guess what... I've both refuted your ridiculous arguments, illustrated in no uncertain terms why they're wrong, AND I've done ad hominems. You're one to talk anyway. Your entire list of posted messages is a giant ad hominem against the thousands of people you think are/were criminals who would get a lifetime in prison if you were correct. "Don't fling ad hominems at me while I'm committing ad hominem attacks against thousands of others." Right. Sure. I think it's time you seek some therapy.
    1
  366.  @lorichet  Nope, not playing your distraction game. You said you didn't think the rover fit. I provided you a photo that you didn't believe existed. I'm not going to sit here and listen to distractions from you. There are dozens of questions you've refused to address, and you never admit being wrong.
    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.  @lorichet  Still denying things you've been presented? Good grief. Sorry that you don't understand how YouTube works, but, they block links to most outside sites. Many channel hosts block all links, even to YouTube videos. This one allows those links, but, not other links. Is your Google broken? You're unable to find the catalog number I provided? Sheeesssssshhhhh. I mean, I knew your ship had sailed, and that you suffer from some pretty severe issues. But, being unable to key in a catalog number... yeah, you're even further out to sea than I thought. Insults aren't answers? Hilarious!! I've given you answers... repeatedly. You've ignored them... repeatedly. You are quite deserving of every comment I've made. And, this is particularly ironic because I must have asked you about 3 dozen questions in this thread and others, and you've refused to answer any of them. Now, YOU're complaining about not getting answers? Sheeeessssssshhhh. Even just now, you've ignored 99% of my response (as usual), and you focus on one thing, and you cannot even get that one thing correct. I mean, most sane people would actually want to be correct. Most sane people would listen to the answers to their own questions. Not you, though.
    1
  369.  @lorichet  ap15-KSC-71PC-415 (repeating from my first posted message in this thread). And, yes, there are hundreds more. You can deny it until the cows come home, but, all this proves (yet again) is that you've never actually looked for the photos you deny exist.
    1
  370.  @lorichet  What catalog number? You posted this in the very next message after I just gave you the catalog number (for the 2nd time in this thread)? Good gods. Your credibility had long been lost, but, this is just plain ridiculous.
    1
  371. For any others in this thread who might be interested, but not getting notifications because you're not addressed directly, you might want to take a look at the latest exchange from our resident super-expert, Esthersar. He kept asking for me to post links to the photo I kept telling him to look at (despite that external links are not allowed). I gave him the catalog number instead (again, for the 2nd time in this thread). Then, his immediate next reply is "what catalog number?" (demonstrating for the millionth time that he refuses to actually read the answers to his own questions). It was literally 1 hour after I just had given him the catalog number for the second time, his immediate next response was to (yet again) deny that he had been given the catalog number. And, he wonders why nobody can take him seriously... good gods.
    1
  372.  @lorichet  If I have to explain the photo, there's really no hope here. Well, there never was much hope anyway. I'd have better luck teaching calculus to an earthworm. But, if you're not capable of understanding the photos, there's no point here.
    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.  @lorichet  Let me see if I've got this straight... we're 82 messages into this thread. I've asked dozens of questions you refuse to answer. I've supplied you with the exact type of photos you pretended you were asking for, which you ignored repeatedly until just now. I refuted many of your claims with iron clad evidence that you're wrong, including quoting directly from Kaysing's own book, and giving you page numbers... which went in one ear, out the other, and you wouldn't admit to being mistaken. You not only ignore all input from me, but you ignore it from everyone else too. You've outright admitted that you're not reading what I'm writing. And, after your non-stop refusal to ever respond to any questions asked of you, you're now wondering why I won't answer your unrelated and irrelevant questions? So, basically, I'm just supposed to keep on answering every question you ask, while you ignored every single one I've asked. Right. We're done here. You have proven what kind of person you are repeatedly. But, it was my favorite when I gave you the photo catalog number, and then you came back in the very next message and asked for the catalog number.
    1
  375.  @lorichet  Quote: "why is it you feel the need to consistently make things up? I didn't read his book, and I for sure wouldn't take anything you say without knowing what he wrote" YOU were the one who denied that Kaysing said what he said. Yassassin told you what Kaysing said (that they secretly didn't actually use the F1 engines on the Saturn rocket, and inserted smaller engines inside). You then claimed Yassassin was wrong, and accused him of libel, saying that Kaysing would sue him if he was still alive to do so. But, all he did was quote from Kaysing's own book!!! So, don't sit there and pretend people are making things up, while simultaneously saying you didn't read Kaysing's own book. Typical, "you're wrong, but I didn't even read it" response from you. Good grief. Guess what, we aren't your problem. Your actual problem is yourself.
    1
  376.  @lorichet  Again, you obviously haven't read anything past the first sentence. You ignore all input, as usual.
    1
  377.  @lorichet  Sorry, what was that you asked? I only read the first sentence you wrote.
    1
  378.  @lorichet  Sorry, could you repeat that? I didn't read anything after your ad hominem attack against my reading comprehension in your first sentence.
    1
  379.  @lorichet  Is your scroll-up broken?
    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. Mostly, it's because they like to pretend to know things they don't know. They feel bad about knowing nothing, and accomplishing nothing, so, they want to feel "superior" by pretending the most accomplished people in the most accomplished program in human history were just as big of failures. It's an offshoot of schadenfreude, except more focused on compensating for their own failures in life, as opposed to just reveling in someone else's failure.
    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. YOU SAID: "How about a image that looks convincing from the 6 landing sites, and not some tiny little spot on the moon surface, that looks like a photo montage" == Have you looked at Arizona State University's website? They have hundreds of photographs of the landing sites, taken from their LRO camera. You can see the landers, the rover tracks, foot paths, etc. You can even see little dots where each of the experiment packages are located. They have these photos from almost every sun angle possible, so, you can scroll through sunrise to sunset, and even see the shadows of the flags moving across the lunar terrain as you scroll the angles. How does this conspiracy go, in your mind? Did generation after generation of NASA officials pass down the moon conspiracy torch, until modern day, where they threaten Arizona State University professors and students into falsifying hundreds of photos of the Apollo landing sites over the last 12 years? Or, hmm, are you one of the ones who says, "not good enough, I want to be able to read the serial numbers on the equipment, otherwise Apollo is fake" (shifting the goalposts)?
    1
  385. Oh, great job deleting your own comment. Bravo. Rather than admitting you were wrong, you simply delete the comment. We're done here, right?
    1
  386. You don't actually think I am going to play this game with you, do you?
    1
  387. Once again, all you have done is demonstrate that you're just playing games. You came back and basically said that you weren't interested in anything I said. Then, about a minute later, you asked me more questions. Why ask me questions when you've made it perfectly clear that the answers don't matter to you? You spew formulas, pretending to know what you're talking about, but, you won't use the formulas to actually demonstrate that you're correct. As I pointed out, you can use those formulas to calculate the arc that any astronauts should take when walking/jumping on the moon. But, instead of doing that, you just spew formulas, because you think I don't understand them, not because you have actually made any kind of point. You've stuck your head in the sand, refused all input, then you sit there and chide and try to shift focus onto me, instead of onto Apollo. Typical strategy of someone playing games, not of someone actually analyzing anything. So, here's what you do: do that math you're so proud to pretend to understand, use it to demonstrate that Apollo missions didn't conform to that math, write it all up, and submit it to aerospace engineering journals. You seem to believe YouTube comments are a method of scientific analysis, but, you're wrong. The journals are where scientific analysis is really done. Go knock yourself out. I refuse to play your game. You weren't interested in my replies anyway, and all you're trying to do is get me to waste my time on you.
    1
  388. Well, we'd have to debate about how smart someone would have to be to get into one of those hideous SpaceX Starships adapted into being a lunar lander. But, the other issue is that I don't think there's any way it's going to happen within 2 years. I realize that they have been promoting that timeline, but, congress controls the money, and they didn't grant the money at a pace to actually put people there that quickly. My bet is 2028-2030.
    1
  389. Look, dummy, nobody can understand you, as usual. You are completely incoherent, as usual. About the only thing I could even digest is the part about Apollo 17 PLSS backpacks lasting 7.5 hours, while Apollo 11's PLSS backpacks only lasted 2.5 hours. Yes. They redesigned lots of things for the later missions, including the PLSS backpacks. Look it up. The later backpacks were larger, heavier, had bigger batteries and tanks, and withstood more pressure. They're called "upgrades." Do they not have those in your mental ward?
    1
  390.  @ChrisPBacon777  YouTube's censorship algorithms have gone even more bananas than they were before. And, they know darned well that what they are doing is annoying. You post something, and it never tells you that the rest of the world can't see it. They let you see your own postings, while blocking everyone else from seeing them, and you never realize you completely wasted your time.
    1
  391. YOU SAID: "It's totally fake" == Wrong. YOU SAID: "look who z filming 2 astronaut s from different angles and the camera moving" == So, let me get this straight... before you even got the answer to your question... and actually, before you even ASKED the question, you already came to your conclusion?? That's how this works for you?? What a moron. Um, dummy, do you REALLY think that NASA managed to fool every country's space program on the planet, bluffing all of the radar stations around the world tracking all Apollo missions to/from the moon, bluffing all of the radio telescopes pointed at the moon to receive the radio signals, fooling every geologist on the planet who analyzed the 850 pounds of lunar rocks, somehow creating fake laser bounce-backs from the landing sites on the moon where there are reflector arrays... but... all of that... then somehow stupidly forgot to make it possible to control the camera remotely?? That's how this goes, in your mind?? Why are you so very proud of being so very dumb?
    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. And, I asked for a timestamp, and you still refused to give it. How can anybody ever reply to you, if you cannot do simple things?
    1
  394. @No Comment Until This Instant Nope. The original poster is correct. Technically, a decade doesn't end until after the year ending in zero. 1970 was the end of the 1961-1970 decade. But, yeah, most people just prefer to use the digit the way you're using it. It's technically wrong to use it your way, but you're not alone.
    1
  395. You are correct. These types documentaries often borrow footage from other missions. It's not confusing really. It's just how a lot of documentaries are produced. If you want accuracy, you need to just watch the original videos, not documentaries.
    1
  396.  @nativesun9865  You haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. Why don't you just say this instead? "I don't understand anything about aerospace engineering, therefore Apollo was fake." It's the exact same as the gibberish you're spewing. No, I'm not going to sit here and teach you how/why things work the way they do. You aren't actually asking these questions. You are pretending to ask questions, but, you've made it perfectly clear that you don't care about the answers. You came to your conclusions before you even asked the questions.
    1
  397. YOU SAID: "I do not understand where the 4 wheel drive came from, seem like there is no room to put it inside or under the spacecraft it was coming from nowhere" == Yet, in the other thread you posted simultaneous to this one, you denied Apollo was even real. And, here you are, stating that you don't know where the rover was?? This is clearly an argument from ignorance and incredulity. "I don't understand it, therefore it's fake." There really isn't any way to get dumber than that. That's about the bottom rung there. Did you try searching for "lunar rover deployment" and see the thousands of hits that would explain it to you, and even show it to you? Or, did you just stick your head in the sand and pretend you know more about Apollo than the 450,000 people who worked on it... none of whom have ever wondered where the rover was located?
    1
  398.  @george6696  Are you PROUD to be an idiot?
    1
  399.  @lorichet  Your lies are downright ridiculous at this point. Now you're saying you DID look at the star photos, but, now you're saying they don't look good enough for you. But, prior, you said they never even took the photos. Right. Keep on shifting that goalpost. Keep those lies coming.
    1
  400.  @lorichet  So, your conclusion is that if I show you the exact thing you asked for, it's fake. Sure. Right. It had nothing to do with the fact that you simply had no idea those photos even existed. Naw, that can't be it. It's that you saw the photos and labeled them fake. Sure. You label EVERY photo fake!!! Why do you ask for more photos that you'll just keep labeling fake? What difference would it make for you? You know darned well that you're going to reject everything that goes against your predetermined conclusion.
    1
  401. "Why did they not take photos of the stars from the moon?" "I didn't ask for blurry photos that show nothing." They did take the photos, you're just denying it. And, your questions don't make any sense, and you know it. You can't sit there and say they took photos that were "blurry" and simultaneously say they never took photos. You know it, and I know it. So, stop lying.
    1
  402.  @lorichet  Of course I've seen them. I've had copies for decades. Some are blurry, like you say. But, others are quite clear. None of this changes the fact that you lied. You don't get to say they never took the photos, while simultaneously complaining that the photos are too blurry for you. How would you have done it differently with the UV telescope they had? What method would you use to prevent the blurriness of some of the photos? They wanted a variety of different exposure levels in the 125 star photos they took. They weren't just going to gamble that one exposure level would give them everything they wanted. So, they kept varying the exposure time to be able to capture more background UV light (which ends up blurring the stars), and had some of them with very low exposure time (which exposed very few stars, just a handful in frame, but quite crisp), and plenty of middle-of-the-road exposure times, which resulted in a "normal" amount of stars, not crisp, not blurry, just regular. Would you not have done it that way? Tell the world, in your massive expertise on UV telescopes, how you'd have done it differently?
    1
  403.  @lorichet  Huh? Do you really expect me to go through 125 photos and give you a list of clear ones? Good grief. LOOK AT THEM YOURSELF. And, don't pretend that you didn't lie. You are as dishonest as they come. You insisted that they never even took the photos, and now you're simultaneously saying they took the photos, but that they're too blurry for you. It's outlandish. Here, I'll give a few crisp ones, but, I'm not going to sit here and go through 125 photos that you plan on rejecting anyway. 1f126, 1f124, 4f007. Want more? Look at them yourself, and stop pretending you already looked. I seriously doubt you even have copies of them, given your track record of nonsense.
    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.  @lorichet  So, you don't even have the set of 125 photos? I gave you the catalog numbers of 3 of the clear ones. How can you possibly even sit there and say that they were too blurry, if you don't have copies of the 125 photos in the first place? More dishonesty. You PRETENDED you saw those photos, when you clearly have not.
    1
  406.  @lorichet  I gave you the catalog number of three of the clearer photos from the Carruthers camera. But, you're too dishonest to even admit that you've never seen ANY of them. You first insisted that no such photos existed. Then, I told you about the Carruthers photos. You then simultaneously claimed the photos didn't exist, and also said the photos were blurry. And, now you're basically saying you've never seen the photos. I'm not playing this game with you. You know darned well that all you're going to do is deny the photos are authentic anyway. Why should I sink a bunch of time into showing you things like this? Any sane person would have looked it up by now. Not you, though. I tell you about the photos you didn't know about, and, all you do is fight. I'd have to drag you kicking and screaming into even viewing them. And, once you see them, you're just going to call them fake.
    1
  407.  @lorichet  "What catalog numbers? I have not seen any catalog numbers from you." Is your scroll up broken? I can see them by using an incognito browser, so, everyone can see them. "If you accuse me of being a liar one more time, we are done with this conversation." Sorry, but, I've seen enough of liars like you to know this tactic when I see it. You act all appalled that people call you out for your lies, and look for any mechanism to worm out of dealing with them. You pretend you can't find catalog numbers that are plainly visible. You pretend you viewed photos you never viewed. And, you say that if anybody calls you a liar, you're going to run for the hills (so you can blame that as the reason for running for the hills, rather than actually fessing up).
    1
  408. What in the world is wrong with you? "Sorry but the numbers you provided" So, that's how this goes? Your last message claimed that you never even saw any of the catalog numbers I gave you. Now, you're admitting that I did. And, you wonder why people call you a liar? "only confirm my belief that the photos supposedly taken from the moon were blurry." So, the clear ones (the ones that weren't blurry) prove that they were blurry? You know, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Apollo isn't your problem. Your problem is rooted far deeper into your psychology than just failing to understand simple things, or lying every chance you get. I mean, you're completely divorced from rational thought at this point. "Therefore, you not only have not provided any catalogue numbers of clear photos," Except the ones I've already given you. "you've continued to accuse me of being a liar." Well, maybe you should stop constantly lying.
    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. Well, there's quite a bit of irony in what you're writing. After Apollo, if you go back and look at the numbers, and adjust properly for inflation, each and every term occupied by a democrat president has resulted in a decrease in NASA funding, and every single term occupied by a republican president has resulted in an increase in NASA funding. There have been zero exceptions until Biden, who inherited the Artemis program from 2019 when it was approved and funded by congress. I give Biden the same amount of credit for that as I give credit to Nixon for Apollo (zero). Both Nixon and Biden had their moon programs funded before they took office. I consider myself neither right nor left, and certainly refuse to align myself with either of the dominant political parties. But, I **AM** a math guy, and I can do the math on which presidential terms resulted in increases or decreases in NASA funding.
    1
  411.  @Cliffmchrist  The percentage of the federal budget isn't the gauge you think it is. It's a nice measurement for the sake of quick comparisons. But, when the population of the USA was 182 million people in 1961, vs. 331 million today, obviously this means that, in addition to inflation, the same percentage of the federal budget today will buy more things than it would in 1961. The better analysis is just to use the estimated inflation values. Furthermore, your method is incorrect. The correct way is to take the NASA budget in the first year that the president takes office (the president inherits the budget when he takes office, he's not the one who sets it that year), then you take the NASA budget when that president exits office. And, you adjust for inflation. You see if it went up or down.
    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.  @Cliffmchrist  And, the variability year by year is natural. It happens under every single president. But, go back and look at the numbers. There is a clear trend from every single Republican administration to increase NASA's budget, and decrease NASA's budget during every single Democrat administration. NO exceptions. Not one, from 1975 when Apollo ended, all the way up to 2021. And, like I said earlier, don't forget that each president's NASA budget for the first year in office was set by the prior administration (well, the congress under that administration, technically). So, you don't get to take Clinton's first year budget (1993) of $26.8 billion (adjusted for inflation) and then attribute that to Clinton. He inherited that amount from Bush's administration. Go look for yourself. There's a Wiki page on it. And, if you don't trust Wiki (which is wise, because it's not 100% reliable), go look at NASA's own historical figures. I just like the Wiki version because it's easy, and makes the inflation adjustment for me. I've also done it the other way (manually adjusting for inflation). And, it comes out pretty similarly to the Wiki numbers.
    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. As a side note, I'm not really sure what you're attempting to say about having written something to me yesterday. Are you trying to say you wrote me a message, but I didn't reply? If that's the case, I'll tell you that I replied to every single sentence you wrote. But, it's possible that you wrote something else that I never saw. YouTube messages are really horrible nowadays. Often times, you can write a message, and YouTube will either auto-delete it, or, even worse, they post it, but you're the only one who can see it. I try to make it a habit nowadays to keep a Chrome browser open, signed in, and another browser open, like FF or IE, not signed in. Therefore, when I post a message with the browser that's signed in, I wait about 60 seconds (there's sometimes a delay in their auto-deleting algorithm), then load the page in the browser that isn't signed in, to verify if the rest of the world can see my posted messages or not. If you posted something I haven't replied to, then, it's a pretty good bet that you're the only one who can see it. And, you don't even have to do anything wrong, in order to get your message deleted and/or blocked. I've had messages get deleted for no valid reason whatsoever, just change one or two insignificant words, and then it works fine. We're not even talking about swearing or anything like that. YouTube's censorship algorithms have gone completely bananas.
    1
  416. Oh, and also (to xpez), sorry, I somehow also confused one of my comments between you and the other conspiratard. For a moment in one of my recent replies, I flip-flopped (in my mind) which of you two thought the Earth was 20x too small, and I accused you of saying that. But, it was the other guy. My apologies for that one aspect of my reply. I try to pay close attention, and never make mistakes, but, alas, they do happen, and I scold myself for years to come, even for small mistakes. I stand behind the rest of my comments when addressing your claims directly. But, that claim, well, I made the mistake about who's who, and that was my fault.
    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.  @xpez9694  Great job ignoring the entire substance, and focusing on how I communicate. Dummy, "ridicule is the only weapon against unintelligible positions." - Thomas Jefferson. Don't sit there and accuse 450,000 people of being involved with criminal fraud, and then be a snowflake and tell me that nobody should call you a name. Don't ignore all input, and then pretend you're on an intellectual quest. And, you want to find your answers elsewhere?? I already gave you the two main places to find your answers, and you've ignored both. (1) Go watch the original videos, not just a 7 second excerpt. (2) Write up your your findings, and submit them via the scientific methods. Anything else, and "I will find my answer somewhere else" just means: "I'll continue to ask until I find people who agree with me, and stick with that" (the hallmark of a delusional mind).
    1
  419.  @xpez9694  YOU SAID: "yes tell me all about if you have the time.. i would like to hear what people say to debunk that." == Sound conducts through the hammer, into the suit, and into the microphone. It had a sound-activation mechanism that sometimes reacted to hammering sound, and sometimes didn't, depending on cadence and volume. What's the alternative? That the people who managed to somehow "fake" the entire planet's radar and radio telescope tracking, including enemy countries, a feat that we still wouldn't know how to do today... were too stupid to remove the sound of a hammer from their tapes? Do you have any idea how many thousands of people would need to be involved with faking Apollo, including enemy countries? Why won't you address the worldwide radar and radio telescope tracking of Apollo? Why do you ignore this? I realize it was in a response to the other guy. But, this is your thread. You can't read it? You refuse input?
    1
  420.  @xpez9694  YOU SAID: "Thanks Rockethead for all of your enlightening conversation." == I don't require thanks. But, thanks for the thanks anyway. YOU SAID: "I will communicate with Yazzam X now." == Has it occurred to you that it really doesn't matter who the source is? Everything stated by me, or Yazzam, can be confirmed or denied via external mechanisms. YOU SAID: "Have a nice evening." == You too.
    1
  421.  @xpez9694  You're like a child just learning to do algebra, and assuming that you're the first one. Meanwhile, mathematics has existed since before recorded history, and algebra is no big deal. You're asking questions that were answered almost 52 years ago, thinking you're the first to ask them. Do you bother to listen to Conrad and Bean, the first two to make these observations about the sound of hammers? No, of course not. Do you have any understanding whatsoever about how the microphone system worked in those suits? No, of course not. A conspiracy video said that the sounds of hammers means Apollo was fake, and the makers of that conspiracy video ignored the answers, and published the video anyway. I'll grant you the credit that you seem to be willing to absorb information. But, what makes you ridiculous is that you're only willing to accept information if people are being "nice" to you. Meanwhile, we all know what you think. For you, you want to think that somehow YOU have noticed these "problems" that none of the 450,000 people who worked on Apollo ever noticed. And, as I pointed out, you ignore the facts presented to you (as you've done above).
    1
  422.  @xpez9694  That's not the reason you ignore me, and you know it. Stop pretending you're a decent human being, when we both know you're not.
    1
  423. Who? Evans? No.
    1
  424. No, it didn't work. They tried it, and it failed. That's why they abandoned the duct tape and used clamps instead. But, the reason it failed wasn't really due to "direct UV& other space rays."
    1
  425.  @rosespeace7622  YOU SAID: "why did they never show the sun ?" == What makes you think they didn't? There are many photos of the sun. And, there are many videos also, especially on Apollo 17, which pointed the video camera straight into the sun many times. YOU SAID: "If you went to the moon wouldn’t you record the sun ?" == On the early missions, they took plenty of photos of the sun, but, they couldn't point the camera at the sun. The vidicon tubes would burn out if they faced the sun, which is exactly what happened on Apollo 12. But, on later missions, they hardened the cameras, and they took plenty of videos of the sun in the late missions. YOU SAID: "And if there was only two men on the moon , when they both worked together who panned and zoomed in and out on the cameras ?" == Ed Fendell.
    1
  426. Well, that's not a completely accurate portrayal. The reason that the Apollo 11 landing was the softest was because Armstrong left the engine on much longer than he was supposed to. He didn't shut it off until after they landed. The "by the book" landing was to shut the engine off when the 5'8" probes touched the surface. The craft was to drop the last 5 feet or so. But, since the landing was so soft, the landing leg struts didn't crush very much. There was a honeycomb mesh inside the landing struts that crushes as the craft lands, acting as one-time-use shock absorbers. But, since the landing was so soft, there wasn't much crushing. There was a much larger/longer step to the ladder as a result of the lack of the designed amount of crushing. But, don't get me wrong here, Armstrong did great. I'd never take away from his skills in this matter. I'm just saying that it didn't quite work the way you're painting it out.
    1
  427. I just love how you ask for "no arguments." As usual, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. You never have. You never will. You are one of the most willfully ignorant people on the planet. I mean, even just a simple fact-check of your assertion debunks it right away. That's one of the most famous pans from Apollo 17 (taken when next to Camelot Crater). Now, here's the problem: Camelot Crater is to the west of the LM. It was directly in front of the LM on the landing approach (which was always from the east). So, the photo you're referring to was taken from directly west of the LM. And, yet, you think that 25:21 depicts an image facing toward the east (back toward the LM)?? Um, no. The photo at 25:21 is being taken down-sun (toward the west). So, as usual, you are completely backward. The LM is BEHIND THE CAMERA, not in front of it, in that image you're talking about. The astronaut is literally facing the complete opposite direction as what you're claiming. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You are as wrong as geometry even allows... 180 degrees in the opposite direction. That's how wrong you are.
    1
  428. Good grief. It seems that YouTube messaging has problems (yet again). I posted a message that apparently isn't working. Bottom line: you are wrong about everything, as usual.
    1
  429.  @arelortal6580  I'm not sure what is wrong with the invisible message I posted earlier, but I'll try to divide it up and repost: YOU SAID: "Have you managed to " convert " ONE lunar landing" == Yes, of course. More than one. But, most, no. That's because you idiots are not concerned with facts, and you've decided ahead of time to reject all input that goes against your delusions. There is no "converting" people who refuse to accept input. YOU SAID: "skeptic" == No, you're not skeptical. You don't know what that means. You are blindly rejecting things that go against your predetermined conclusions. That's not skepticism. That's insanity. YOU SAID: "in your relentless crusade of exposing all the idiots in this planet ?" == You're doing quite a good job of exposing yourself without my help. YOU SAID: "Nice try" == What "nice try"?!?!?! What's wrong with you? Camelot was to the west of the landing site. The camera is facing west at 25:21, not east. They were standing at Camelot when they took that photo. The LM is is completely in the opposite direction than the image at 25:21. You are literally BACKWARD. So, how is this just a "nice try"?? This is a slam dunk. When you don't even know what direction the camera is facing, yet you use this ignorance as ammunition to say that Apollo was faked, then you lose. This isn't a "nice try." No. You don't get to just brush away the fact that you are wrong by 180 degrees, and declare victory. Good gods, the utter arrogance."
    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.  @arelortal6580  OK, it seems that the missing message worked this time, when I divided it up. But, anyway, the point is: I looked up the exact photo you were complaining about, and found that they weren't in front of the LM when they took the photo at 18:40 (from that other video). They were INSIDE it. It's insignificant that I was wrong about that, because it's the same basic issue. My point is, depending on where they're standing when they take the photo, the LM may or may not be in frame, yet the background mountains will basically look the same. They can be standing behind the LM, in front of the LM, or inside the LM. And, yes, if they are facing west for all of the photos you're talking about, yes, the background will always be those mountains. They're so many miles off in the distance that there is virtually no change in appearance by just moving a hundred yards forward or backward, in front of the LM or behind it, or inside it. Yes, those mountains will look basically the same at that amount of distance. You, on the other hand, simply do not understand it. Go map out where each photo was taken, just like Eric Jones did, and you'll see how wrong you are.
    1
  432.  @philipmcdonagh1094  Hilarious!!! So, "all you ever needed to know" was to watch a press conference? Really? But, you don't remember about the later ones? So, your entire opinion is based upon watching one press conference? And, you can't actually name anything about that press conference, just that "something wasn't right"?? Wow.
    1
  433. Huh? What does that have to do with anything? What facts do you think I have wrong? And, um, you do know that Artemis 1 is sitting on the launchpad right now, preparing to go to the moon in a couple of months, right?
    1
  434. Damage
    1
  435.  @TheWokeFlatEarthTruth  His "Van Halen" comment is still there. But, the issue is that YouTube comments doesn't work very well, and you need to learn the tricks on how to see some of the comments. But, anyway, yes, it's always ironic when one of these nuts pretends to be an expert, then calls them the "Van Halen belts." It's like pretending to be a doctor, but having no clue about the purpose of lungs.
    1
  436. I noticed you ran for the hills the moment you were provided evidence. Typical nut.
    1
  437. Wow, haven't seen you in years. Are you still standing in open fields complaining to the world about your utterly failed life? Or, did you get some help yet?
    1
  438. YOU SAID: "Of all this video I don't see any stars at all." == Yeah, if you saw stars, that would have meant it was fake. Since it's real, you can't see stars. YOU SAID: "Let's try to find the flag that they put on the moon." == Five of the six flags are still standing. We know this from the shadows of those flags in the LRO photography. YOUS AID: "Let's prove we land on the moon by finding the US 🇺🇸 on the moon with a telescope." == Telescope??? Like, a telescope on Earth? I'm afraid you know nothing about optics. Light doesn't work that way. There's only so much you can cram through a lens, and this is a well understood property of light. Optical resolution. Look up the formulas. Do the math. It would take a lens about 75 feet across to be able to see the lunar landers on the surface of the moon, and you'd only see them as a single dot each. You wouldn't know what they were, you'd only see a dot. In order to actually be able to see them with enough resolution to know what they were, it would take a lens a quarter mile in diameter. Given that the largest optical grade lens ever constructed in history is 5 feet in diameter, and costed $168 million, I'd say we're a long way off from a quarter mile lens.
    1
  439. Hunonga ang pagdroga.
    1
  440. Are you asking why nobody went in those years? Because no such program was funded until 2019. Artemis is in progress now.
    1
  441. "No photos of stars were ever taken on any mission." Pfftt. Of course they did. They took many with the Hasselblads, but, of course, they turned out badly (long exposures from a hand-held camera don't work very well). But, more importantly, they took 125 photos of the stars using the tripod-mounted Carruthers UV telescopic camera. "Golf clubs were alledgedly taken but a telescopic lens was not." No golf clubs were taken, at least not in their entirety. A single golf club head was taken, and screwed into the contingency sample handle. And, they had 500mm telescopic lenses for the Hasselblads, and the Carruthers UV telescopic lens for that camera.
    1
  442. What a complete and total liar. I responded to everything you asked for. And, now you're telling somebody else that you were never given the stuff I already gave you. What's wrong with you? Seriously? You asked for evidence, I gave some of it to you (a drop in the bucket), and you ignored it, and now you're pretending I never gave it to you.
    1
  443. Yeah, keep on telling yourself that. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has a functional "scroll up" on their computers. Nobody is going to believe your lies.
    1
  444. So, your "terms" are to reject all evidence given to you, then define a specific type of photo that you want... which has already been provided in the LRO images... which you equally reject. So, if someone gives you what you ask for, you're going to reject it anyway. You won't listen to any other evidence. So, basically, you are asking for something that you have determined, in advance, that you will reject. And, you won't take any other input. Bravo! That's the living definition of how a delusional mind operates.
    1
  445. So, basically, you refuse to read anything I've written.
    1
  446.  @Deploracle  "The rest of your comment I have no interest in." "What do you think he meant by absolute black? Black except for all the stars?" (And, you went on to ask more stuff.) So, you are not interested in what I wrote, but, you want me to write more? Um, no. Crank. WRITE UP YOUR GIBBERISH FOR SCIENCE JOURNALS!!!!! Good gods.
    1
  447. Sorry, if you aren't interested in anything I typed, I'm not interested in what you typed. I don't know why you find this difficult.
    1
  448. Proof that you are a drug addict (follow the same link).
    1