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

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6.  @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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Do you just go from video to video to video, posting this same nonsense?
    3
  11.  @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
  12.  @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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. For the same reason you cannot see them on Earth in the daytime. It's too bright to see dim stars.
    3
  17. Pfttt. Proven? Um, no.
    3
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21.  @pasisovi  Yes, the least educated people think Apollo was a hoax. The world's experts do not.
    3
  22.  @Carl-mw3ft  QUOTE: "and so I am" --- a crackpot.
    3
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Did you even read my reply? Why is it that none of you hoax nuts can read?
    3
  26. 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
  27.  @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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33.  @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
  34. Did you expect to see stars in the daytime, in a low-res slow-scan video feed?
    3
  35.  @vfpaintjobs  And, you're PROUD of this stupidity?
    3
  36. You heard it, huh? Well, obviously that means you should believe it. Nobody has ever lied.
    3
  37. Hundreds of such photos. "Apollo stellar photography."
    3
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. "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
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46.  @honzalev1  Good grief. You don't understand ANYTHING.
    2
  47. 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
  48. Huh? Why would you say we're struggling to get something into space? What are you talking about?
    2
  49. 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
  50. 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